M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad 2. Sourendra Dey…..… v. Opp. Party(S) ……

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 392 of 2020 1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad 2. Sourendra Dey…..…....... Petitioner(s)Versus Opp. Party(s)…… Union of India & Anr………… Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen …… For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate Mr. Piyush Poddar, Advocate For the UOI : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate. …… 4/05.03.2020 Heard the parties. In this application, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 07.03.2018, by which cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 276 B & 278 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been taken and summon has been issued to the petitioners for appearance. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner no. 1 is Company and petitioner no. 2 is the official of the company. He submits that the cognizance order is absolutely bad and cryptic and it does not suggest application of mind. He submits that the requirement of Section 204 Cr.P.C. has not been dealt with in the impugned order. He further submits that the court should have sufficiently satisfied itself before taking cognizance for the offence as alleged, which has not been reflected in the order impugned, which makes the order defective. After going through the record, I find that the Court below has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 276 B & 278B of the IT Act and issued summon to them. What are the materials to proceed against petitioner no. 2 has not been mentioned in the impugned order. What is his role in the entire occurrence has also not been mentioned in the impugned order. Further, what are the offence which attracts Section 276 (B) of I.T. Act has also not been whispered in the impugned order. In a most mechanical way, the impugned order has been passed. This Court in the case of “Amresh Kumar Dhiraj & Ors.- versus- State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199”, has passed the detailed order discussing the provisions and requirement of order under Section 190 & 204 Cr.P.C. The impugned order is not in consonance with the aforesaid order. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the order dated 07.03.2018 is not in consonance with the legal provisions as laid down. Thus, this application stands allowed. The impugned order dated 07.03.2018 is, hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted to the court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of law. This criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed Mukund/-cp.3 (Ananda Sen, J)