Application u/s 202/203 CrPC – Accused cannot ask Trial Court to decide contentions

Application u/s 202/203 CrPC – Accused cannot ask Trial Court to decide contentions raised by him at pre-summoning stage

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3661 (2023) (02) AC

Important Case Laws covered:
Nupur Talwar v. CBI & Anr.
State of Bihar and Another vs. P.P. Sharma and Another, 1992
Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Another vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Others, (2012)10 SCC 517
Rajesh Dubey vs. State & Ors.  2013 SCCOnLine Del 3637
Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others, (1976) 3 SCC 736
Chandra Deo Singh vs. Prokash Chandra Bose, (1964) 1 SCR 639

The Income Tax Officer (the complainant) had filed a complaint under Section 200 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) alleging commission of offences under   Section 276C(1), 277, 278 and 278E of ‘The Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) read with Section 120B, 191, 199, 200 and 204 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), inter alia, against the petitioner (the accused) amongst others.

On the issue of jurisdiction, before the Trial Court, the Petitioner moved an application under Section 202 and 203 Cr.P.C. for postponement of issue of process and dismissal of the complaint of the Department.

The Trial Court dismissed the application under Section 202 and 203 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to   file the said application at pre-summoning stage and the contentions raised by the petitioner (qua jurisdiction, procedure, maintainability, bias and violation of circulars etc.) as noted would be considered at appropriate stage.

Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the Petitioner filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 of CrPC before the Hon’ble Sessions Court.

The Petitioner contended that the Trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. It was contended that the complaint was pre-mature as the complainant did not initiate penalty proceeding against the applicant.  Relying on the CBDT Circular No. 24/2019   dated 09.09.2019 it was contend that prosecution for tax evasion   under section 276C(1) of IT Act can only be filed after confirmation of order of imposition of penalty by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Further, the Petitioner contended that the though the trial Court noted the contentions raised by the petitioner, the trial Court did not decide the said contentions and made observation that the said contentions would be considered at appropriate stage of   proceedings. He contended that such contentions cannot be   deferred for adjudication at subsequent stage. He contended that the said contentions must be decided by the trial Court. He   contended that the trial Court should be directed to decide the said contentions before taking a decision on the issue of summoning of the petitioner.

The Hon’ble Sessions Court observed that the only right conferred   by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the   petitioner is that he can communicate the Court of his grouse against the Investigating Officer or with the method of the investigation. The petitioner has informed the Court his grievances   pertaining to various legal aspects relating to inquiry.

The Hon’ble Sessions Court opined that the window opened by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for an accused to address his grievances to the Court has been availed by the petitioner. However, the petitioner cannot seek adjudication of his   contentions. The petitioner cannot ask the trial Court to decide the   contentions raised by him at pre-summoning stage as for that matter, he has no locus standi.

The Sessions Court opined that the contentions raised by Petitioner were noted by the trial Court with the observation that the said contentions will be looked into at appropriate stage. Therefore, the trial Court has acted in accordance with dicta of the said judgment.

Accordingly, it was held that there was no legal infirmity or material   illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.

As a result, the criminal revision petition was dismissed.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Deduction u/s 80P denied as return not filed u/s 139(1) but in response to notice u/s 148
• High Court denied pre-arrest bail to accused of fake ITC utilisation
• ITR was not non est for no e-verification when AO took cognizance of returned income
• Section 43CB & ICDS-III is applicable to contractors not to real estate developers
• Expenses of ESOP are allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) of Income Tax Act.