Pradeep Kumar vs. Y.S Kumar

Held

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting interference with the impugned orders of the Trial Court and the Revisional Court. The Court found that the petitioner, not yet summoned, had no right at the pre-summoning stage to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court. The Court noted that the complainant alleged forgery of meeting minutes to cheat students by awarding fake degrees, despite courses not being approved by any statutory authority. The Revisional Court had rightly observed that the allegations of forgery and cheating under the IPC could not be brushed aside at that stage and an opportunity must be given to the respondent to lead evidence. The High Court directed the Trial Court to consider the applicability of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. at the stage of proceedings under Sections 202, 203, and 204 of the Cr.P.C. The Court did not find any extraordinary circumstances as laid down in 'Tej Kishan Sadhu Vs. State and Ors.' to warrant interference.

Facts

The petitioner, Pradeep Kumar, sought to set aside a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) which upheld a Metropolitan Magistrate's (MM) order. The MM's order allowed the complainant (respondent), Y.S. Kumar, to lead evidence in support of his complaint alleging forgery and cheating by Amity Global Varsity P. Ltd. and its associates, including the petitioner. The complaint arose from allegations of service tax evasion, where Amity Global Varsity allegedly forged documents to avoid tax liability by claiming its courses were approved by Amity University, Noida, despite not being approved by any statutory authority. Show cause notices for service tax evasion exceeding Rs. 23 Crore were issued. The petitioner, as a proposed accused, argued that the complaint was barred by law, specifically Sections 14 of the Excise Act and 195(1)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. The ASJ dismissed the revision petition, and the petitioner then filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cognizance of the complaint alleging forgery and cheating is barred under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C., 1973, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 89(4) of the Finance Act, 1994, and Section 134 of the Central Goods & Services Act, 2017, due to the absence of a written complaint from the public servant concerned. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the alleged forgery was committed in tax proceedings before the Commissioner of Service Tax, and therefore, prosecution for such forgery is barred without a complaint from the concerned public servant or their administrative superior, citing Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. They also relied on Section 14 of the Excise Act and Section 83 of the Finance Act, arguing a complete embargo on instituting prosecution. Reliance was placed on various Supreme Court judgments, including C. Muniyappan Vs. State of Tamilnadu. Respondent's arguments: The complainant argued that the allegations pertained to forgery and cheating punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and that the complaint was filed for forgery committed to escape tax liability, thus cognizance was not barred. They clarified that the accused forged minutes of meetings to falsely claim approval of their courses. The complainant also argued that while a previous writ petition was dismissed on locus standi, the High Court had appreciated the cause.