Satyendra Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Held

The Court held that the prayer to quash the FIR could not be accepted at this stage, as the allegations involved improperly carrying out works contract, which required investigation. While acknowledging the petitioner's argument that non-payment of GST might not directly fall under Sections 420 or 409 IPC, the court found that the broader allegations necessitated further inquiry. The court did not definitively rule on whether non-payment of GST constitutes an offense under the cited IPC sections. However, considering the circumstances and the protection granted to a co-accused in a similar petition (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8516 of 2020), the Court provided interim relief. The investigation was permitted to continue to its logical conclusion, but the petitioner was granted protection from arrest until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., provided he cooperated with the investigation.

Facts

The petitioner, Satyendra Kumar, sought to quash a First Information Report (FIR) dated July 25, 2020, registered under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Swar, District Rampur. The FIR pertains to allegations of non-payment of GST and improperly carrying out works contract. The petitioner's counsel argued that non-payment of GST does not constitute an offense under Sections 420 or 409 IPC. It was also highlighted that a co-accused, Mohd. Arif, had obtained protection from arrest in a similar writ petition, provided he cooperated with the investigation. The revenue or State's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations of non-payment of GST, in the context of a works contract, constitute offenses punishable under Sections 420 or 409 of the Indian Penal Code, thereby warranting the quashing of the FIR? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that non-payment of GST, by itself, does not amount to cheating (Section 420 IPC) or criminal breach of trust by a public servant or banker or merchant or agent (Section 409 IPC). The petitioner relied on the principle that GST non-compliance is a civil or tax liability, not a criminal offense under these IPC sections. Respondent's Contention: The respondent (State) did not explicitly record arguments regarding the legal interpretation of the IPC sections. However, the court's observation implies that the allegations of improperly carrying out works contract necessitate investigation.