2023 (7) TMI 1223 - HC - GST

Validity of FIR against the petitioner on the basis of Complaint filed by the GST officer - Offence of forgery and misconduct - no E-way bill - evasion of GST - Exercise of powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - It appears from the allegations made in the impugned FIR that while local crime branch of Gandhidham was on petrolling and checking the vehicle, during that time, they have got an information from informant that 5 trailers loaded from D.B. Translink, Gandhidham are going to be unloaded at Rahpar and coals in those vehicles are without documents. Thereafter, they kept watching and found the alleged trailers are passing on the road - It also appears that the petitioners have mis-declared the goods. The drivers are not carrying the e-way bills and different material than what is stated in the bill has been transported with an intention to evasion of GST and therefore, the petitioners have committed the offence against the economy of the country. The petitioners have created false e-way bills, bilty and bills of the coals and involved in the offence of forgery and also committed cheating with the government and thus, they have hatched conspiracy and committed offence punishable u/s. 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC and there is no offence registered under the provisions of GST Act. It is not a matter of dispute that the investigation is still going on and it is at present at a crucial stage. Since, the investigation is going on, it would be too premature for this Court to opine on any of the submissions made with regard to lopsided investigation. The Investigation Officer has also not submitted his final report, therefore, any of his comment on the same would be in the opinion of this Court is at a premature stage. In a recent decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2021 (4) TMI 1244 - SUPREME COURT , is required to be referred to, where it was held that The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or no coercive steps either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Considering the allegations made in the impugned FIR, prima facie, the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence cannot be ruled out. Thus, in view of the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find this to be a fit case where discretion under section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised in favour of the petitioners - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petition seeks to quash a complaint under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and challenges the registration of FIR by the police department instead of a private complaint by GST officers.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Quashing of FIR and Complaint
The petitioners argued that the essential ingredients of the charged sections were not satisfied, and the FIR should be quashed as only a private complaint by GST officers, not police, was permissible. They claimed the allegations were absurd and improbable, lacking grounds for proceeding. The respondent contended that the investigation was ongoing and crucial, urging against quashing the complaint.

Issue 2: Exercise of Inherent Powers
The Court noted the wide amplitude of inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing their use to ensure justice and prevent abuse of process. It highlighted the need to consider the nature and gravity of the offence, stating that serious offences like rape or murder may not warrant quashing, while commercial or civil disputes could be considered for quashment.

Issue 3: Investigation and Judicial Restraint
Referring to a recent Supreme Court decision, the Court emphasized that police have the statutory right to investigate cognizable offences, and courts should not impede investigations unless no offence is disclosed. It stressed that quashing should be sparingly done, with courts refraining from interfering in investigations except in exceptional cases to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion:
Considering the allegations and the legal principles outlined, the Court found no grounds to quash the complaint, as the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence could not be ruled out. Thus, the petition was dismissed, maintaining the ongoing investigation and judicial restraint in interfering with the process.