9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated u/s 195 Cr.P.C., for making out an offence u/s 193 IPC is wholly unsustainable, as the enquiry is the outcome of the judicial proceedings culminating in the filing of the case. The enquiry report, by itself, is a complaint and, therefore, it cannot be stated that there is no complaint on the basis of which the case has been filed. This Court, by no means is implying that the stand of the petitioner that a complaint is mandatory for maintaining a charge u/s 193 IPC and, in the present case, this Court is not inclined to go into the said issue, as this Court has already held supra that the enquiry on the basis of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has led to the filing of the enquiry report leading to the filing of the present case before the trial court. Prosecution being time barred - Sequence of events only reveal that it was a continuous process for which the petitioner also was one of the instruments and, therefore, by no means, could it be stated that the prosecution was time barred, as the judicial proceedings, which was initially at the behest of the petitioner had consumed the time leading to the filing of the case in the year 1991. Therefore, it ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclude the prosecution from going on with the trial. A holistic appreciation of the materials available on record categorically reveals that the issues, that are before the trial court, are triable issues, which cannot be quashed at the present stage and it has to be taken to its logical end and, therefore, the present petition for quashment of the case at the instance of the petitioner, does not inspire the confidence of this Court and, according, the same deserves to be rejected. Present criminal original petition, being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. - CRL. O.P. NO. 13183 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 2-1-2020 - THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI For the Petitioner : Mr. J.Srinivasan For the Respondent : Mr.N.Baskaran, Spl. PP (IT Cases) ORDER The present petition has been filed for the quashment of the the case on the file of the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I, Egmore, Chennai, in C.C. No.186 of 1991. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the Proprietor of West Coast Corporation. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the search that was conducted in the premises of the various members of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wholly unsustainable. 6. It is the further submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the enquiry at the instance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has brought to light not only evasion of tax and penal interest, but also filing a petition before the Calcutta High Court by personation, which requires to be dealt with iron hands. The majesty of the Court itself is at stake by the act of the petitioner, which, if condoned, will pave the way for commission of such grave offences. 7. Further, it is the submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the 'No Due Certificate' will in no way affect the pending judicial proceedings and if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the said issue at the time of trial, which could be gone into by the trial court and it is not open to the petitioner to plead that the said 'No Due Certificate' would nullify the case pending before the trial court. Further, it is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that all the issues raised are triable issues and it would not be in detriment to the respondent to have the whole case closed at this stage. 8. This Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the enquiry has resulted in the filing of the case before the trial court. Therefore, the sequence of events only reveal that it was a continuous process for which the petitioner also was one of the instruments and, therefore, by no means, could it be stated that the prosecution was time barred, as the judicial proceedings, which was initially at the behest of the petitioner had consumed the time leading to the filing of the case in the year 1991. Therefore, it cannot be held that the prosecution is time barred, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. The last of the contention of the learned counsel being that 'No Due Certificate' having been issued by the respondent, the prosecution is per se unsustainable, as even by the said certificate, the respondent has accepted that there is no due payable by the petitioner. Though, on the face of the contention, the same looks attractive, but what requires to be pointed out here is that the case has been filed even in the year 1991 before the trial court and the trial is proceeding since 1991. When a matter is sub judice, it is not only administratively, but also judicially wrong on the part of the depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
