Asvinkumar vs. The Inspector Of Police
Facts
The petitioner, Asvinkumar, filed a criminal original petition seeking protection from harassment by the first respondent, the Inspector of Police, Annanagar Police Station (Crime), Madurai. The harassment was allegedly based on a complaint by the second respondent, R. Solaimurugan. The petitioner, an employee of a restaurant, was accused by the former manager (second respondent) of misappropriating GST amounts. The police stated that the petitioner allegedly fabricated documents to siphon off Rs. 4.5 lakhs in GST and an enquiry was underway in C.S.R.No.68 of 2019. The police denied harassing the petitioner.
Held
The Court directed the respondent police to follow the principles laid down in the judgment reported in 2013 (6) CTC 353 [Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh] if the complaint prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence. If a preliminary enquiry or interrogation was deemed necessary, it should only be conducted after issuing a summons under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, specifying the date and time for the enquiry and providing reasonable travel time. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the enquiry, and the Court stipulated that there should be no harassment to the petitioner during the enquiry. The Court recorded the submission of the Additional Public Prosecutor that the police had neither harassed nor intended to harass the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the first respondent (police) should be directed not to harass the petitioner in the guise of an enquiry based on the complaint of the second respondent, and if so, to what extent? The petitioner argued for protection from harassment by the police during the enquiry. The revenue (represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor) contended that the petitioner was alleged to have committed a cognizable offence involving fabrication of documents to siphon GST, and the police were conducting an enquiry without harassing the petitioner. The police stated they had neither harassed nor intended to harass the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 41A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER The petitioner seeks protection from the harassment of the first respondent presumably on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent was a former Manager of a certain Restaurant in the city and the petitioner is also working there. The petitioner has been accused of misappropriating the amount handed over to him for paying GST.
The learned Additional Public Pro
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.