Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Cal) 917

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J.
Nirmal Kumar Lunawat And Another - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Another - Respondent
C.R.R. No. 2209 of 2014
Decided On : 17-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
Sanjoy Banerjee, Advocate, Chandrani Das, Advocate, Riti Basu, Advocate, Madhusudan Sur, Advocate, Dipankar Pramanick, Advocate, Anil Kumar Gupta, Advocate

The court emphasized that questions of fact, including alleged compromises, are to be established by evidence and cannot be decided at the stage of considering an application under section 482 of Cr. P.C.

Headnote:
section 482 - Criminal Procedure - Indian Penal Code, section 186/353/114 - Income Tax Act, section 132 - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were accused of obstructing and manhandling Income Tax Officials during a search warrant execution. They sought quashing of the proceedings based on a compromise with the complainant and inherent power of the court under section 482 of Cr. P.C.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the alleged compromise and resolution of the dispute were questions of fact to be established by evidence and could not be decided at the stage of considering the application under section 482 of Cr. P.C. The court dismissed the revisional application.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged compromise, abuse of process of court, and the court's inherent power under section 482 of Cr. P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that questions of fact, such as the alleged compromise, are in the realm of appreciation of evidence and cannot be sorted out at the stage of considering the application under section 482 of Cr. P.C.
Final Decision: The revisional application was dismissed, and the court directed the trial to be expedited.

JUDGMENT

ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J. - Petitioners being accused in G.R Case No.300 of 2012 have preferred this revision under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, praying for quashing of proceedings in G.R. Case No. 300 of 2012, arising out of Hare Street Police Station Case No. 90 of 2012 dated 24.01.2012 under sections 186/353/114 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta.

2. a brief profile of the case leading to this revision is that, on 24.01.2012 at about 10:a.M Mr. Sunil Kumar agarwal, Deputy Director Income Tax Investigation Unit 1(3) aayakar Bhawan Kolkata along with Mr. Satyacharan Naskar, ITO, Mr. Samir Kumar Shah, ITO and some other Inspectors went to the petitioners' premises having their address as 'Forum Builders Private Limited' at 4/1, Red Cross Place, Kolkata-700001 to execute a search warrant issued under Section 132 of the I.T. act. The Income Tax Officials showed the search warrant to Mr. N.K. Lunawat and tried to enter the premises but the petitioner no.1 along with his staff members including Mr. Sudhakar ayala Somayajula abused the Income Tax Officials in filthy language and manhandled them for the purpose of obstructing them from carrying out their official duty.

3. a written complaint was lodged by Mr. Sunil Kumar agarwal, D.D Income Tax Investigation Unit on 24.01.2012, addressed to the Officer-in-Charge Hare Street Police Station. On the basis of the written complaint, police registered Hare Street Police Case No. 90 dated 24.01.2012 under sections 186/353/114 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. after completion of investigation police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners on 10.12.2013 under sections 186/353 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 17.12.2013.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the charge sheet and the proceedings arising there from, the petitioners filed this application praying for quashing of GR Case No. 300 of 2012 on the grounds inter alia that the impugned proceeding is a glaring example of abuse of the process of court and the same is liable to be set aside forthwith. That the petitioners and Opposite Party No. 2 have arrived at a compromise and have mutually settled their disputes and differences and the Opposite Party has communicated in writing by his letter dated 06.02.2012 that the department does not wish to continue the proceeding in view of an amicable settlement between the parties. It is further urged that in exercise of the plenary and the inherent power vested in this court, for achieving ends of justice, the impugned proceedings should be quashed. according to the petitioners there are no satisfactory provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure which can affect the inherent power of the Court under section 482 and even non-compoundable offences under section 320(9) of Cr. P.C can also be quashed if the parties amicably settled the dispute.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner argued that there was some misunderstanding between the petitioners and the Opposite Party No. 2 when the Income Tax Officials reached their premises on 24.01.2012. Due to misunderstanding and some altercation which took place, opposite party no. 2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners but subsequently on 27.03.2012 opposite party no.2 issued a letter in his official capacity address to the Officer-in-Charge Hare Street Police Station informing that the dispute and differences between him and the petitioners have been resolved and the department is not willing to pursue the aforesaid complain anymore. Laying stress upon this amicable settlement learned advocate for the petitioners urged that after a compromise has been arrived at between the alleged aggrieved party and the petitioners, there is no point in proceeding with the case as it would amount to an abuse of the process of court. Petitione

Click Here to Read the rest of this document