IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1733/2016 BETWEEN:
Sri. S. Chandrashekar, S/o. M. Seetharam, Aged about 39 years, At No.9, III Cross, Hosahalli, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 040. …Petitioner (By Sri. Jayaram K., Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, By the Police of Koramangala Police Station, Bengaluru City, By the SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Sri. Bharath Kumar Hegde, Commercial Tax Officer, Audit-2.1, VAT Division-2, Vanijya Terige Kariyalaya-2, ‘A’ Block, 80 Feet Road, Koramangala 8th Block, Bengaluru – 560 047. ...Respondents (By Sri. I.S.Pramod Chandra, SPP II for R1; R2 – Served and unrepresented) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quashing the FIR in CR.No.331/2015 of the 1st respondent police and the order of cognizance dated 26.10.2015, proceedings in C.C.No.26084/2015, registered for the offences P/U/S 420, 468 and 471 of IPC on the file of the VIII Additional C.M.M., Bengaluru, as against this petitioner.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R In a re-assessment proceedings undertaken by respondent No.2, he noticed that the petitioner herein produced certain invoices which were found to be forged and fabricated. Hence, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. before the Koramangala Police, based on which Crime No.331/2015 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 468, 471, 420 R/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. After investigation, charge-sheet has been laid against the petitioner for the above offences and the proceedings are pending before the VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Petitioner has sought to quash the said proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned SPP-II for the respondent No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Section 79 and Section 80 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KVAT’, for short) and would submit that the complaint in question having been lodged by respondent No.2 without previous sanction of the Joint Commissioner cognizance of the alleged offences by the learned Magistrate is bad in law. Secondly, he contends that respondent No.2 was a quasi- judicial authority and he had jurisdiction only to enquire into the alleged offences punishable under the KVAT. He had no jurisdiction to initiate criminal action against the petitioner for the alleged offence. Referring to the provisions of Section 195(b)(i) of Cr.P.C., the learned counsel submitted that in view of the allegations made in the complaint, the respondent No.2 was required to take action only under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and not to resort any criminal action against the petitioner by lodging a complaint alleging commission of offence under the provisions of IPC.
5. None of these contentions, in my view are legally tenable. Undisputedly, the proceedings are not initiated against the petitioner for the offences under the provisions of KVAT. Records reveal that, independent proceedings are initiated against the petitioner under Section 79 of KVAT for evasion of tax. The said proceedings do not debar initiation of criminal proceedings in respect of the offences falling under the provisions of IPC. What Section 80 debars is the cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 79 of the KVAT without previous sanction of the Joint Commissioner. In the instant case, since no offence is alleged against the petitioner under the provisions of the KVAT, the prior sanction of the Commissioner is not necessary. Hence, the first contention raised by the learned counsel is rejected.
6. Coming to the second contention, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived and misplaced. Undisputedly, the offences alleged against the petitioner fall within the provisions of Sections 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 120B of IPC. Section 195(b)(i) deals with any of offence punishable under any of the following Sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court.
7. The said provisions requires that in order to initiate proceedings in respect of the said offence, a complaint in writing should be made to that Court by such officer as may be authorized by the Court. In the instant case, the offence alleged against the petitioner does not fall under Section 195(b)(1) of the Code as contended, as such this contention also is liable to be rejected.
8. In so far as the applicability of the Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, the said Section read as follows:
“340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195. – (1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceedings in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, -
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 195.
(3) A compliant made under this section shall be signed, -
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
1[(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.] (4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in section 195.”
9. Section 340, is applicable only when an offence referred to clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 195 has been committed in relation to the documents produced before the Court or given in evidence in a proceedings before the Court, and in the opinion of that Court is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into the said offence. It does not casts any obligation on the Court to resort to the procedure under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. It is only when the Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice, it is obliged to take recourse to the said provisions. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner based on Section 340 of Cr.P.C. also does not come to the aid of the petitioner.
10. For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the contentions urged in the petition and also I do not find any illegality or infirmity, whatsoever, in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner warranting interference by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The contentions urged by the petitioner are accordingly rejected.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SV/-