9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rayer under Section 226 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as moved by the Income Tax Authority would be made difficult in view of the pendency of the TCR before this Court, qua which, it is essential to observe that it is always open to the petitioners to seek redressal before this Court for the TCR to be placed before the learned Special Judge, CBI01 for disposal of the application under Section 226 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to which, the prayer can always be made before the concerned Bench of this Court. - W.P.(CRL) 783/2021 & CRL.M.A. 5709/2021 - - - Dated:- 16-4-2021 - MS. ANU MALHOTRA, J. Petitioners: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sandeep Kapur, Mr. Shivek Trenon, Mr. Abhimanshu Dhyani, Mr. Vivek Suri. Respondents : Mr. Anupam S Sharma, SPP Mr. Prakarsh Airan, Mr. Harpreet Kalsi, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC for R-2. ORDER MS. ANU MALHOTRA, J. In terms of the proceedings dated 08.04.2021, a status report has been filed by the CBI in a sealed cover along with the copy of the closure report that has been filed before the learned trial Court previously. The same has been perused. The stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udge, CBI-01 vide order dated 18.04.2015 and the request made by the CBI thus for acceptance of that final report was declined and the complete closure report along with the original documents were directed to be returned back to the CBI against appropriate receipt with directions to the CBI to conduct further investigation in the matter and to file a fresh final report under Section 173 of the Cr.PC, 1973 preferably within a period of three months. The proceedings dated 23.09.2016 before the learned Special Judge, CBI-01 indicate that subsequently on 23.08.2016, a final report under Section 173 of the Cr.PC, 1973 was filed by the CBI qua which, there were observations vide para 4 made therein to the effect: 4. Perusal of this final report I charge sheet further shows that an incomplete charge sheet has been filed and nothing has been mentioned in this charge sheet regarding the compliance of the order dated 18.04.2015. No further investigation has been done by the CBI for the last more than 1 year Vide observations in paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 11 of the said order dated 23.09.2016, it was observed to the effect: 6. Perusal of the present charge sheet clearly indica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before the Hon'ble High Court, in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 970-72/2017 and the next date of hearing before the Hon'ble High Court is now fixed for 28.02.2017. A self-attested copy of the order dated 18.01.2017, passed by the Hon'ble High Court is also placed on record alongwith this application. It has been prayed by the IO and the Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI that the present proceedings be kept pending, till the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, in the said applications. Perusal of the order dated 18.01.2017, passed by the Hon'ble High Court shows that the Hon'ble High Court has not stayed the present proceedings or the order dated :23.09.2016 and the Hon'ble High Court has fixed these applications for hearing the arguments on the maintainability of the said petitions Perusal of the record shows that this court is repeatedly directing the CBI to investigate the matter properly' and several orders have been passed by this court for proper investigation of the case, since April, 2015. But, the CBI is not investigating the matter properly and is not complying the previous court orders. Even on 23.09.2016, this court had again directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of hearing. The operation of the impugned order of the learned Special Judge, CBI dated 09.02.2017 directing the issuance of the show cause notice to the Director, CBI and seeking his personal appearance before the learned trial Court was stayed till the next date of hearing. The proceedings in Crl.M.C.619/2017 are stated to be now listed for the date 24.05.2021. A submission has been made on behalf of the petitioners to the present petition seeking in relation to the stated urgency of the prayers made by the petitioners for consideration of the application under Section 226 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the respondent no.2 submitting to the effect that the petitioners seek to avail of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and the provisions thereunder, in relation to which, the petitioners are required to deposit the income tax arrears towards their demands on or before 30.04.2021. A submission has also been made on behalf of the petitioners that in terms of the proceedings in Crl.Rev.Pet.128/2010, the learned Special Judge, CBI had been directed to pass appropriate orders for bringing back the amount lying in account nos. 1400103368092, 44259816 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court under Section 561-A to quash the proceeding. It is difficult to see how in these circumstances it could ever be contended that what the High Court was being asked to do by making the subsequent application was to review or revise the Order made by it on the earlier application. Section 561-A preserves the inherent power of the High Court to make such Orders as it deems fit to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice and the High Court must, therefore, exercise its inherent powers having regard to the situation prevailing at the particular point of time when its inherent jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. The High Court was in the circumstances entitled to entertain the subsequent application of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and consider whether on the facts and circumstances then obtaining the continuance of the proceeding against the respondents constituted an abuse of the process of the Court or its quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice. The facts and circumstances obtaining at the time of the subsequent application of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were clearly different from what they were at the time of the earlier application of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
