Waris Ali Ebrahim Khan vs the Income Tax Department and Anr. — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

Waris Ali Ebrahim Khan vs the Income Tax Department and Anr. — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing and setting aside of the order dated 2 August 2018 passed in CC No.328/SW/18 issuing process against the petitioner, with a direction to the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order on its own merits in accordance with law; criminal writ petition disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 2 August 2018 issuing process against the petitioner is unreasonable and lacking in application of mind, and therefore liable to be set aside. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 2 August 2018 passed in CC No.328/SW/18 by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai, issuing process against the petitioner, being unreasonable and devoid of application of mind, is quashed and set aside.

Ratio / Principle

While a Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons when issuing process, such an order is not an empty formality: the Magistrate must cautiously examine the material on record, appreciate the statutory provisions, carefully exercise judicial discretion, scrutinise the record, determine whether sufficient grounds exist to summon the accused to stand trial, and record that opinion in the order; an issue-process order that fails to reflect such application of mind is liable to be set aside.

Key takeaways

Since the complainant should not be held responsible or made to endure consequences for the Magistrate's failure to fulfil his duty, the learned Magistrate is directed to pass an order afresh on its own merits in accordance with the law.ratio¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition – challenge to order issuing process – S. 276CC, Income Tax Act, 1961 – order dated 2 August 2018 of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai, in CC No.328/SW/18 issuing process against the petitioner quashed and set aside as unreasonable and lacking application of mind – Magistrate not required to record detailed reasons while issuing process, but such an order is not an empty formality: he must cautiously examine the material, appreciate the statutory provisions, carefully exercise judicial discretion, scrutinise the record, determine whether sufficient grounds exist to summon the accused, and record that opinion – an issue-process order failing to reflect such application of mind is liable to be set aside (reference to Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine 1383) – complainant not to be held responsible for the Magistrate's failure – Magistrate directed to pass a fresh order on its own merits in accordance with law – petition disposed of (R.N. Laddha, J.; 6 January 2025).

Digitally signed by SMITA SMITA JOHNSON JOHNSON GONSALVES GONSALVES Date: 2025.01.07 00:00:30+0530

40.wp5670-24.docx

sg

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Writ Petition No.5670 of 2024

Waris Ali Ebrahim Khan Adult Indian Inhabitant, Aged about 37 years, Permanent resident of L-1-A, 502 Oakland Park, Off. New Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-69

… Petitioner

versus

The Income Tax Department, through Pankaj Eknath Nigam, an officer attached to Income Tax Department, having office situated at Room No.406, C-12, 4^th Floor, Tratakshakar Bhawan, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051

The State of Maharashtra, to be served Through Public Prosecutor, High Court (A.S.), Mumbai … Respondents

Mr Ashok M Saraogi, for the petitioner. SPP Shabnam Latiwala, for respondent No.1. Mr MG Patil, APP, for respondent No.2/ State.

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 6 January 2025.

Page 1 of 4

6 January 2025

40.wp5670-24.docx

sg

P.C.:

. Heard Mr Ashok Saraogi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms Shabnam Latiwala, the learned Special Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1/ Income Tax Department.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 2 August 2018 (the impugned order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38^th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai, in CC No.328/SW/18), whereby the learned Magistrate issued the process against the petitioner. The order reads thus:

“ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT-1

Perused the complaint and documents. Heard the learned Advocate for the complainant. The complainant has made out his prima facie case to issue process, hence process be issued against the accused for an offence punishable U/s. 276 CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that it is unreasonable and does not demonstrate any application of mind.

Page 2 of 4

6 January 2025

40.wp5670-24.docx

sg

It is a settled position in law that the Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons while passing an order of issuing the process. However, such orders are not an empty formality, and doing so as a matter of routine without cautiously examining the material available on record, and appreciating the statutory provisions, may result in putting the criminal law in motion and summoning an innocent individual to stand trial. Before issuing a process, the Magistrate must carefully exercise his judicial discretion and scrutinise the material on record. He must satisfy and determine whether sufficient grounds exist to summon the accused to stand trial. Once he forms such an opinion, he must record it in his order. When an issue process order fails to reflect such application of mind, it is liable to be set aside. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh Vs State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine 1383 .

In view of the above, the impugned order of issuance of the process dated 2 August 2018 passed in CC No.328/SW/18 by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38^th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai, is quashed and set aside. However, at the same time, it must be considered that the

Page 3 of 4

6 January 2025

40.wp5670-24.docx

sg

complainant should not be held responsible or have to endure any consequences due to the Magistrate's failure in fulfilling his duty. The learned Magistrate is, therefore, directed to pass an order afresh on its own merits in accordance with the law.

The criminal writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(R.N. Laddha, J.)

Page 4 of 4

6 January 2025