Manmohan Singh vs. State Of U.P. . And Another

Held

The Court observed that there were numerous factual controversies that could only be properly appreciated by the trial court. Since the applicant was not yet bailed out, the Court directed him to appear before the trial court within 15 days and move an application under Section 88 Cr.P.C. The trial court was ordered to decide this application within 15 days of the applicant's appearance, releasing him with or without sureties. Subsequently, the applicant was to move a discharge application under Section 227/239 Cr.P.C., which the concerned court was to hear and decide within six weeks of its filing, with a well-reasoned order after hearing the State's counsel. Until the disposal of the discharge application, the applicant was not to be arrested in the said case crime. The Court clarified that if the discharge application was decided against the applicant, he would have to surrender and file a bail application.

Facts

The applicant, Manmohan Singh, filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a charge sheet dated 8.11.2022, and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3 of 2023, including a summoning order dated 2.1.2023. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that previous final reports submitted by the Investigating Officer were ignored due to political pressure, and that the charge sheet was filed without evidence. He further argued that no tax liability was fixed upon him by the sales tax department, the matter pertained solely to GST tax liability and Input Tax Credit (ITC), and therefore, no offense was made out. The applicant claimed the proceedings constituted an abuse of process. The State opposed the prayer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the charge sheet and criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant under Sections 419, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. are liable to be quashed as an abuse of process of law, considering the applicant's assertion that no tax liability was fixed and the matter relates to GST and ITC. (Section 482 Cr.P.C. and relevant IPC provisions). Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: Argued that he was falsely implicated, that the charge sheet was filed without evidence due to political pressure, and that since no tax liability was fixed and the issue relates to GST and ITC, no offense is made out. Relied on para-48 and 49 of his affidavit. Claimed the proceedings are an abuse of process. Revenue/State: Opposed the prayer.