IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA Criminal Petition No.9276/2016 BETWEEN:
1. M/S SAI SECURITIES ANDRADE ARCADE, DIANA CIRCLE, UDUPI-576 101.
2. MR. SURAJ AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S SAI SECURITIES, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.B-32, CITADEL APARTMENTS, KADRI, MANGALORE-575 010.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.K.GIRISH, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (SIV) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, 6TH FLOOR, TRADE CENTER, BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD, MANGALORE-575 010.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED PRL. C.J. (SR. DN.) AND CJM, MANGALORE, IN C.C.NO.287/2016.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner has sought to quash the complaint filed by the respondent seeking prosecution of the petitioner under Section 174 of IPC. The matter is pending in C.C.No.287/2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaluru.
2. The essential facts necessary for disposal of the petition are that, the respondent initiated an enquiry proceedings under the Finance Act, 1994, for ascertainment of service tax liability of the petitioner. In the said proceedings, summons was issued to the petitioner to appear on 23.06.2015. The petitioner did not respond to the said summons. Hence, another notice was issued directing the petitioner to appear on 17.7.2015. As the petitioner did not comply with the said notice, the respondent was constrained to issue summons on 20.10.2015, 21.12.2015, 21.01.2016, 03.03.2016 and 28.04.2016. Sensing that the petitioner was adopting dilatory tactics to avoid his liability as the inquiry could not be commenced, respondent lodged a complaint under Section 200 of IPC seeking prosecution of the petitioner under Section 174 of IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of the liability due by the petitioner in terms of the orders passed by this Court, more than Rs.1 Crore has been deposited with the respondent. Therefore, there is no basis for initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Further he submits that the petitioner could not appear before the respondent on account of genuine and unavoidable reasons as the petitioner was suffering from ill-health. The medical certificate in proof thereof was sent to the respondent. In the said circumstances, there was no cause of action for the respondent to invoke the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
4. Disputing the above submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that despite issuance of repeated summons, the petitioner did not appear before the respondent. The medical certificate was sent to the office of respondent through post. The respondent verified the correctness of the medical certificate by calling for a report from the District Wenlock Hospital and found that the petitioner was not suffering from any ailment, which prevented him from appearing before the respondent. The respondent therefore was well justified to resort criminal action against the petitioner as he refused to appear before the Court.
5. Considering the above facts, in my view, the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is well justified. The conduct of the petitioner indicates that the petitioner has deliberately and intentionally failed to appear before the respondent. It is evident that petitioner has resorted to dilatory tactics to stay away from the public authorities. The deposit of rupees one crore before this Court does not absolve the petitioner from the charges leveled against him. Inquiry having been delayed on account of the tactics adopted by the petitioner, in my view, the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner do not warrant interference by this Court.
6. The facts discussed above squarely attract the ingredients of Section 174 of IPC. Therefore, I do not find any reason to allow the petition. Consequently, criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PB