In a Significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings alleging a forged Income Tax Return (ITR) with a fake Chartered Accountant (CA) seal, citing jurisdictional issues.
The petition was filed challenging the registration of a First Information Report which has ultimately culminated in filing of a charge-sheet
The Assessee No.1 Vidya Sachitanand Suvarna was earlier a partner of the firm along with the complainant. It was also not in dispute that the petitioners had filed a private complaint being aggrieved by the alleged concoction of a retirement deed, under which assessee No.1 came out of the firm and the wife of respondent No.2 Syed Toufiq Ahmed was inducted into the firm.
After the initiation of criminal proceedings by the assesses a complaint was presented under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) against the petitioners (wife and husband) alleging that certain false income tax returns had been submitted by the petitioners in the complaint that they had lodged against respondent No.2 and this constituted offenses under Sections 193, 195, 196, 209, 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 504, 506(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) .
The police, after investigation, have laid a charge sheet against the petitioners for offenses under Sections 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
It may be pertinent to state here that respondent No. 2 alleged that the income tax returns submitted by the petitioners with their complaint were forged documents, whereas the charge-sheet only mentions that, during investigation, the petitioners allegedly furnished forged income tax returns with fake seals of a Chartered Accountant and signatures, intending to deceive.
Having regard to the fact that petitioner No.1 was a partner of the firm, the furnishing of alleged forged income tax returns by assessee in their complaint cannot be construed as cheating respondent No.2 in any manner.
The income tax returns of some other person had been forged, it was for that person to initiate
Action and respondent No.2 herein cannot complain that he has been cheated by virtue of this particular forgery.
It may also be pertinent to state that if, as a matter of fact, the petitioners had produced forged documents, it is for the appropriate court, to which the forged documents are produced, to initiate action against the petitioners; Respondent No.2 cannot contend that the documents produced before a court of law are a forgery and therefore initiate proceedings under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
The single bench, led by Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda, held the view that the impugned proceedings initiated against the assessee were without jurisdiction, and they were consequently, quashed. The petition was allowed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
