M/S United India Insurance ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3456 Jhar

                                                     1                   Cr.M.P. No. 2317 of 2022


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                   Cr.M.P. No. 2317 of 2022
             1.   M/s United India Insurance Company, a Government company
                  incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its address at
                  Floor No.2, Rajhans Mansion, Jharia Road, Bank More, P.O., P.S. &
                  District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand through its Director Mr. Ajit Kumar, son
                  of Late Ram Bhajan Rajak, aged about 55 years, resident of Link
                  Road, Visti Para, Hirapur, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad,
                  Jharkhand
             2.   Ajit Kumar, son of Late Ram Bhajan Rajak, aged about 55 years,
                  resident of Link Road, Visti Para, Hirapur, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District-
                  Dhanbad, Jharkhand                                 ... Petitioners

                                          -Versus-

             1.   The State of Jharkhand
             2.   Sandip Ganguly, son of Shri Kanhai Lal Ganguly, Office of Asst.
                  Commissioner of Income Tax ('ACIT'), Dhanbad, Aayakar Bhawan,
                  Luby Circular Road, P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad,
                  Jharkhand                                 ... Opposite Parties
                                             -----

             CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                             -----

             For the Petitioners             : Mr. Vishal Kumar Trivedi, Advocate
             For Opposite Party No.2         : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate
                                             -----

05/30.08.2022. Heard Mr. Vishal Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners

and Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal

proceedings including the cognizance order dated 12.03.2018 in connection

with Economic Offences Case No.15/2018, pending in the court of the

learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Dhanbad.

3. It has been alleged in the complaint filed by opposite party no.2

before the learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Dhanbad that

petitioner no.2 on behalf of petitioner no.1, being the principal officer

deducted TDS amount of Rs.1,02,900/- for the financial year 2013-14, but

failed to credit the same to the account of the Central Government of India,

TDS Ward, Dhanbad and on this background, the complaint case has been

filed. The cognizance has been taken vide order dated 12.03.2018.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have

filed petition for discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C., which was rejected by

the learned court vide order dated 04.06.2022. He further submits that the

cognizance order is bad in law and no case is made out against the

petitioners. He also submits that the petitioners have already deposited the

TDS amount and in view of the judgment passed by the Patna High Court in

the case of Sonali Autos Private Limited v. The State of Bihar &

others, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.16498 of 2014 decided on 02.08.2017,

the case of the petitioners is fit to be allowed. He further submits that there

is no bar of quashing the cognizance order even after framing of the charge

and dismissal of the discharge petition. He also relied upon the judgment

passed by the Patna High Court in the case of Rabindra Nath Tiwari &

anr. v. The State of Bihar & anr. , reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Pat

1541.

5. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:

"8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by way of reply, submits that as far as the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is concerned, the same is misplaced and also misconceived. It is submitted that the present application was presented before the Registry of this Court on 05.02.2013 after the affidavit being affirmed on 04.02.2013, i.e., much before the order framing charge dated 22.02.2013 and thus the same could not have been incorporated in the present application. It is further submitted that the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 in the case of Moti Lal Songara (supra) was in the background of a case in which the revisional court was not informed about framing of charge and an order was passed which was challenged before the High Court. In that background the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the said fact being suppressed at the time of passing of an order

disentitled a party from relief as it amounted to playing fraud with the Court. In the present case, it is submitted that before the matter was heard by this Court, it has already been brought to the notice of the Court that charges have been framed and thus there cannot be any comparison between the factual matrix of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the present case as it cannot be said that this Court has been kept in the dark about framing of the charge and the matter has been finally decided. With regard to the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 in the case of A. E. Rani (supra) he submits that in the said case, the fact was that there was a civil litigation pending between the parties with regard to partition of immovable property of the appellant's husband whereas the criminal case was with regard to forcible removal of moveable articles and thus there was no similarity between the two and both the civil and the criminal case required to be proceeded with and thus the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the criminal proceeding could not be quashed, whereas in the present case the dispute in the entire complaint was of a civil nature. Similarly, it is submitted that in the case of Kamala Devi Agarwal (supra) the allegation against the accused was of forgery of a document and thus pendency of a civil proceeding in which the said document was involved was not enough to quash the criminal proceedings merely because in a case of forgery there is some element of civil nature whereas in the present case there is no similarity on facts. Thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 do not come in the way of the petitioners seeking quashing of the present criminal case. In response to the submission of learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 of the present case having become infructuous due to subsequent framing of charge against the petitioners, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala reported in (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 590 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that power under Section 482 the Code can be exercised to quash proceeding where continuation of the same would amount to the abuse of the process of the Court and by making the accused undergo the ordeal of trial will amount to perpetuating an illegality resulting in great hardship to the accused."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the judgment

passed by this Court in the case of Bhola Rana & others v. State of

Jharkhand & another in Cr.M.P. No.457 of 2009, decided on 15.01.2014

on the same point. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioners can

challenge the cognizance order at any stage despite of the fact that

discharge petition has been rejected by the learned court.

7. On the other hand, Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel for opposite

party no.2 submits that the petitioner has already filed the discharge

petition which has been rejected vide order dated 04.06.2022 and the said

order is not under challenge. She further submits that once the discharge

petition has been dismissed, it is incumbent upon the petitioners to

challenge that order. She also submits that now the charge has already

been framed. She further submits that the learned court has rightly

considered all aspects of the matter and has come to the conclusion that

whatever has been argued here by the learned counsel for the petitioners is

the subject matter of trial.

8. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties, this Court has gone through the materials on the record. It

transpires that for non-violation of the statutory provision under the Income

Tax Act, 1961, the complaint case has been filed and the learned court has

taken cognizance vide order dated 12.03.2018. The petitioners have chosen

to file discharge petition under Section 245 Cr.P.C., which was rejected by

the learned court vide order dated 04.06.2022. In the discharge petition,

the learned court has considered the submission of the learned counsel for

the parties and has come to the conclusion that no case of discharge is

made out. The charge has already been framed. The ratio of the judgment,

as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not in dispute. It is

well settled that if no case is made out against the accused, the High Court

can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the case in hand, the

petitioners have already chosen to file discharge petition under Section 245

Cr.P.C., which was rejected vide order dated 04.06.2022 and the said order

has not been challenged and the cognizance order has been challenged. In

this background, the contention of the petitioner is not tenable as the

petitioners can challenge the cognizance order at any stage despite of the

fact that discharge petition has been rejected by the learned court.

9. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.

10. Consequently, I.A. No.7359 of 2022 stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/