Sumati Hari And Another v. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax (Uinv-I), Chandigar

CRMM4()32022 (O&M) -|- 115IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH CRM-M-4039-2022 (O&M)Date of decision : 11.02.2022 Sumati Hari and another _ Petitioners Versus The Assistant Director of Income Tax (Uinv-I), Chandigar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Denesh Goyal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent.(Through Video Conferencing)(Through Video Conferencing) 1111 VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. forquashing of impugned complaint dated 02.04.2019 (Annexure P-1) filedunder Sections 276-B, 276-C and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 readwith Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as impugnedsummoning order dated 03.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) and all theconsequential proceedings arising therefrom] After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for thepetitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present petition CRMM4()32022 (O&M)-)- with liberty to the petitioners to take up all the points as raised in thepresent petition and available to them, at the relevant stage before the trialCourt. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed asWithdrawn with liberty aforesaid. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further stated thatthere are four accused in the present case and even the husband ofpetitioner No.l is accused and is facing trial. It is submitted thatpetitioner No.1 is a lady and has to take care of her minor children and isresident of Jalandhar whereas the proceedings are pending in Chandigarh.It is further submitted that petitioner No.2 is 69 years old who is sufferingfrom ill health inasmuch as he has to undergo dialysis and is also residentof Jalandhar, thus, prays that personal appearance of petitioner Nos.1 and2 before the trial Court may kindly be exempted. Keeping in view the abovesaid prayer made and in view offacts as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitionerNo.1 is a lady and she has to take care of her minor children and isresident of Jalandhar whereas the proceedings are pending in Chandigarhand that petitioner No.2 is 69 years old and is suffering from liver ailmentand has to undergo dialysis and he is also resident of Jalandhar whereasthe proceedings are going on in Chandigarh and the fact that husband ofpetitioner No.1 is also an accused who is facing trial, thus, the personalappearance of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 before the trial Court is exempted,subject to the following conditions:- -3- 1)they shall be represented through their counsel; 11)shall not delay/stall the trial proceedings; 111)shall not dispute their identity as accused; iv)Shall have no objection if the prosecution evidence is recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel; Vvshall appear before the trial Court as and when required by the trialCourt;Court; V1)any other condition which the trial Court may impose, All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand! disposed of in view of the abovesaid order. 11.02.2022(VIKAS BAHL)PawanJUDGEWhether speaking/reasoned:-Yes/NoWhether reportable:-Yes/No