JUDGMENT:

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner (original accused No.8) seeks to challenge the Order dated 18 February 2014 and the Order dated 21 July 2022, whereby the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai, in Criminal Case No.52/SW/2014 (for short, ‘Criminal Case’) issued the process and the fresh summons against him. He also prays to this Court to quash the Criminal Case filed by respondent No.1 against him for the offence punishable under sections 276-B read with 278-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the I.T. Act’).

4. Mr Vineet Naik, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner served as an independent, non-executive, and nominee director on the Board of S. Kumar Nationwide Limited (for short, ‘the company’) from 27 June 2007 to 12 November 2011. For the financial year 2008-2009, the company failed to deposit the TDS amount of Rs.2,98,29,252/- to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed period; however, this amo