Crl.p/101330/2016 Of Sri.mestri Balachandra Venkaji v. Income Tax Department

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO CRL.P.No.101330/2016 BETWEEN: 1.SRI MESTRI BALACHANDRA VENKAJI, AGE: 68 YEARS, FALLS ROAD, AGE: 68 YEARS, FALLS ROAD, GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2.SRI SURESH G. SHOLAPURMATH, AGED 68 YEARS, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, COURT ROAD, GOKAK. COURT ROAD, GOKAK. (BY SRI ASHOK KULKARNI & SRI H.R. KAMBIYAVAR, ADVs.) …..PETITIONERS AND: INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BYITS INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRI ANGAD KUMAR, AGED 37 YERS, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I, GOKAK. …..RESPONDENT (BY SRI Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADV.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.708 OF 2015 IN ANNEXURE-A PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GOKAK INSOFAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 2. This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the private complaint in Criminal Case No.708/2015 in Annexure-A pending before the Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gokak for the offence punishable under Section 276C (2) and 277 of the Income Tax Act. 3. The petitioner No.1 is a Doctor (specialized in Dermatology) and practicing at Gokak. The petitioner No.2 is the Chartered Accountant having his office at Gokak. The petitioner is said to be an income tax assessee. The first petitioner filed income tax returns for the assessment years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 and the second petitioner computed the taxable income of the first petitioner. First petitioner had given income tax amount to one of the staff of second petitioner. The said staff has admitted the fact of receiving money from the client for payment of taxes in his statement under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act. 4. Sometime in the year 2009, the complainant informed the first petitioner that the tax paid for the assessment years were Rs.1,090/- for the assessment year 2007-08, Rs.885/- for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.460/- for the assessment year 2009-10 only. 5. Further examination revealed that the receipted challans of the bank were manipulated to indicate payment more than the amount paid in the bank. On examination of the counterfoil of the bank challan, it was noticed that there was an altercation of the figure. The same is confirmed by the Chief Manager of the State Bank of India, Gokak Branch. Thereby the petitioners have played mischief by prefixing the extra digit. According to the second petitioner, the mischief was committed by one of his staff. On the basis of the complaint filed by the Income Tax Department, the cognizance was taken for the offences alleged against the accused persons. 6. Sri Ashok Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the difference amount is only Rs.10,000/- and the same has been paid with interest. He would further submit that in a similar matter this Court in Crl.P.No.100919/2016 rejected the petition and the petitioners agitated the matter before the Apex Court. The order of this Court was set aside by the Apex Court in S.L.P(Criminal).No.936/2017. Therefore, he prays for quashing of the private complaint in C.C.No.708/2015. 7. Sri Y.V.Raviraj, learned counsel for the respondent-Department opposes the petition. 8. The private complaint came to be registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 276C(2) and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The copy of the order of this Court and the Apex Court are made available by the learned counsel for the petitioner is perused. The relevant portion of the order of the Apex Court in S.L.P(Criminal) No.936/2017 is as under: 7. Sri Y.V.Raviraj, learned counsel for the respondent-Department opposes the petition. 8. The private complaint came to be registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 276C(2) and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The copy of the order of this Court and the Apex Court are made available by the learned counsel for the petitioner is perused. The relevant portion of the order of the Apex Court in S.L.P(Criminal) No.936/2017 is as under: “The present appeals are from a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in which the High Court has refused to quash the proceedings against the appellants. As the amount involved is small, and has already been paid with interest long ago, the Circular dated February 07, 1992 squarely applies and, therefore, no proceedings should have been filed as the amount is below Rs.25,000/-. In view of this, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and quash the proceedings against the appellants.” 9. With reference to the Circular dated 07.02.1992 this matter is settled insofar as the difference of tax with interest is paid by the first petitioner as per the challan. However, the same is not disputed by the respondent-Department. In the circumstances, no purpose remains to adjudicate. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the private complaint in C.C.No.708/2015 on the file of the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gokak is hereby quashed insofar as petitioners are concerned. Sd/- JUDGE Naa