Disposed

Vivek Singh v. Union of India and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2022A482/28653/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the proceedings against the applicant for failure to deposit the assessed tax amount within the stipulated time. However, to prevent imprisonment, the court stayed the non-bailable warrant for four weeks on the condition that the applicant surrenders personally.

What did the court decide?

Non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance for four weeks subject to surrender; quashing of warrant refused.

Vivek Singh Vs Union of India and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28653 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vivek Singh Opposite Party :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramji Singh Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.S.G.I.,Gaurav Mahajan

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Complaint Case No.799 of 2019 under Section 276 of Income Tax Act, 1961, District Varanasi.

¶7

Counsel for the applicant submits that earlier he filed 482 Application No. 719 of 2021 wherein following order was passed vide order dated 27.01.2021 :

¶8

"This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the complaint dated 16.4.2019 vide complaint no.799 of 2019 (Union of India vs. Vivek Singh), under Section 276 CC Income Tax Act pending in the Court of Special C.J.M., Varanasi as well as summoning order dated 16.4.2019.

¶9

Sri Ashish Agrawal, counsel for the opposite party, on the basis of instructions, submitted that the compounding application of the applicant has been decided on 24.9.2019 and the said fact has been concealed in the present application.

¶10

At this stage, Sri Sameer Jain, counsel for the applicant states that he is ready deposit the amount along with upto date interest as on date within a period of three weeks from today.

¶11

Sri Ashish Agrawal, counsel for the opposite party, has no objection.

¶12

Heard Sameer Jain, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for opposite party.

¶13

Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that any offence under this Chapter may, either before or after the institution of proceedings, be compounded by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or a Principal Director General or Director General.

¶14

In view of the submission made by counsel for the parties, the applicant is directed to deposit the amount along with interest as on date within a period of three weeks. Thereafter the concerned court shall proceed accordingly.

¶15

For a period of three weeks or till deposit of amount by the applicant, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶16

It is made clear that if the applicant fails to deposit the amount within the aforesaid period then the interim protection granted by this Court shall automatically come to an end and it will be open for the concerned authority to proceed against the applicant in accordance with law.

¶17

With the above observation, the present application is disposed of."

¶18

The applicant approached before the authority concerned along with the order dated 27.01.2021 passed by this Court. Since the applicant has not complied the order dated 27.01.2021 passed by this Court, the representation of the applicant has been rejected and non bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant.

¶19

Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 argued that applicant is defaulter and has not furnished the assessed tax amount.

¶20

In view of the above, the relief as sought by the applicant in the instant application is refused.

¶21

However considering the aforesaid alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned court below within four weeks from today and in case he applies for bail, the bail application of the applicant shall be disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law and keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶22

For the period of four weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the concerned Court below, whichever is earlier, non-bailable warrant dated 26.11.2021 shall be kept in abeyance.

¶23

With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶24

Order Date :- 17.5.2022 Meenu

¶25

Digitally signed by MEENU SINGH Date: 2022.05.18 17:18:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vivek Singh v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Singh v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tariq @ Babli and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil @ Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramveer Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gajendra and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Geeta Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mitthu Lal Alias Mithai Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another