Court No. - 34
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 255 of 2001 Applicant :- M/S. Shri G.P. Engineering Works Mirzapur And Others Opposite Party :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shakeel Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate, Ashish Agrawal, Bharatji Agarwal, S.K. Singh, S.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel for applicants and Ms. Deepti Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent-1.
2. Applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") with a prayer to quash proceedings of Criminal Case No. 193 of 2000 initiated at the instance of respondent- 1 by filing a complaint under Sections 276(1)(C) read with Section 278B and Section 277 read with Section 278B of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961") for the assessment year 1990-91.
3. Counsel for applicants submitted that all partners have been implicated in complaint though all were not responsible for conduct of business of Company i.e. M/s Sri G.P. Engineering Works which is also applicant-1 in the present case.
4. However, I find that it is clearly mentioned in the complaint that applicants-2 to 4 were partners and incharge of and responsible for conduct of business of Company and also for commission of acts and omissions, they had full knowledge of all works. Relevant paras- 3 and 4 of complaint read as under:-
“3. That the accused opposite party No. 1 is a partnership firm engaged in manufacture and sale of agricultural implements and derived income therefrom during the Assessment Year 1990-91 as well as in the past. The accused opposite parties carried on business in the status of registered Firm in the name and style of accused opposite party-1 and accused opposite parties No. 2 to 4 were its partners having 1/3rd share each during the Assessment Year 1990-91 and were incharge of and responsible to the firm for the conduct of business of the firm acts, commissions and omissions.
4. That the offences have been committed within the full knowledge of accused opposite parties and accused opposite parties failed to exercise any due diligence to prevent the commission of aforesaid offences.”
5. It is next contended that against order of penalty passed by Assessing Officer, an appeal was preferred by Assessee which was allowed by Appellate Authority but I find that this aspect is in the realm of defence and cannot be examined at this stage. Further, the scope of proceedings under Sections 271(1)(C) of Act, 1961 is different to the offence committed for which complaint has been filed. Since parties have remedy before Court below, therefore, I do not propose to enter into details of this aspect.
6. In view thereof, I do not find any merit justifying for quashing criminal complaint at this stage.
7. Dismissed accordingly. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Siddhant Sahu