Marimuthu vs. S.C.Padikkasu

Held

The Court held that the grounds raised by the petitioner, including the alleged absence of GST particulars, have no merit in the context of a quash petition. The Court opined that all such grounds can and should be raised before the trial court. Consequently, the Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash the proceedings was dismissed. However, the Court granted the petitioner's subsequent prayer to dispense with his personal appearance before the trial court, subject to strict conditions. These conditions include the petitioner's presence on the first day of appearance, for receiving copies, initial questioning, reply to charges, questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and at the time of judgment, or whenever insisted upon by the trial court. The petitioner must also provide an undertaking to be represented by counsel who will cross-examine prosecution witnesses on the same day and not dispute their identity. The Court expressly left undecided the ultimate guilt or innocence of the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Marimuthu, filed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2020 before the Fast Track Court (Magistrate Level), Karaikudi. The petitioner contended that the respondent's complaint, alleging a sale of rice for Rs. 3,36,000/-, was void as the annexed invoice and bill lacked GST particulars of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed innocence and alleged false implication. The High Court, however, found no merit in the quash petition and directed that all grounds could be raised before the trial court. The petitioner then prayed for dispensing with his personal appearance, which was granted with specific conditions regarding his presence on certain dates and an undertaking to be represented by counsel.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2020 on the file of the Fast Track Court (Magistrate Level) Karaikudi are liable to be quashed on the ground that the annexed invoice and bill in the complaint do not contain GST particulars of the petitioner, thereby rendering the evidence void under the provisions of the relevant GST Act and Rules? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the absence of GST particulars on the invoice and bill makes the evidence void under the relevant GST Act and Rules, warranting the quashment of the proceedings. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondent/State regarding this issue. The Court's view was that all grounds can be raised before the trial court.