LexRAJESHWAR TIWARI AND ORS. versus NANDA KISHORE ROY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 10 S.C.R. 444 RAJESHWAR TIWARI AND ORS. v. NANDA KISHORE ROY (Criminal Appeal No. 779 of 2007) AUGUST 19, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Exercise of powers under - Quashing of complaint - Employee filed C complaint against the employer alleging discrimination on the basis that an amount per month was wrongfully deducted from his salary as income tax and was not deposited to the income tax authority month by month - Magistrate directed issuance of summons against the employer for offence punishable ul D ss. 40611208 /PC - Employer filed petition uls.482 CrPC for quashing of the complaint which was dismissed by the High Court- Held: The proceedings initiated by the employee were of a civil nature, and same, if adjudicated by the Magistrate would be an abuse of process of court - The High Court E committed an error, firstly, in not assigning any reason and passing a cryptic order and, secondly, in failing to exercise its jurisdiction u/s. 482 CrPC when the complaint did not disclose any offence of criminal nature - Criminal proceedings pending before the Magistrate, accordingly, F quashed - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120-8 and 406 - Income Tax Act, 1961 - SS. 192, 200, 206, 271C and 2768-88. The respondent-employee filed a complaint against the appellants-employer alleging discrimination on the basis that an amount of Rs.-1,640/- per month, was G wrongfully deducted from his monthly salary as Income Tax and not deposited to the income tax authority month by month. The Magistrate directed issuance of summons against the appellants for offence punishable u/ss. 406/ H 444 RAJESHWAR TIWARI AND ORS. v. NANDA KISHORE 445 ROY 1208 IPC. The appellants filed a petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C A for quashing of the complaint. The application was dismissed by the High Court. The employer filed the instant appeal contending that in view of the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly, Sections 192, 200, 206, 271C and 2768- 88, like other employees, the respondent was liable to pay income tax and the appellants as employers were statutorily bound to deduct an amount from his salary as per the said provisions; that inasmuch as the appellants C performed their statutory obligation, it was not a case for adjudication by the Magistrate on the criminal side and further that the High Court also failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C in not quashing the summoning order. B D Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. It is not clear how the Judicial Magistrate concluded that "there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 406/120 8 IPC", more E particularly, when the inquiry report by the SI shows that the issue raised in the complaint is civil in nature. From the materials placed, particularly, the contents of the complaint, relevant statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, report of the SI, it is clear that the complaint does not disclose any case to proceed against the accused persons as arrived by the Judicial Magistrate. It was not F a case for criminal prosecution. If the respondent was very much interested to vindicate his grievance, he could have very well approached the officer concerned (in the employer-organisation) or to the Income Tax authority G concerned. [Para 11 and 12] (456-A-F] 2.1. Though the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and H 446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 10 S.C.R. A with caution, but when adequate materials are available which clearly show that the proceeding is either of civil nature, cannot be adjudicated by the criminal court, or it is an abuse of process of court, the High Court is well within its power to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and B quash the same. [Para 14] [457-B-C] 2.2. In the instant case, the High Court committed an error, firstly, in not assigning any reason and passing a cryptic order in one line without adverting to any of the C relevant materials and, secondly, it failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C when the complaint does not disclose any offence of criminal nature. In view of the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act and the assertion of the appellants that deductions were being made for all the persons who are liable to pay tax in terms D of the Income Tax Act, the proper reme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.