1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No. : 8898 OF 2013 M/s S. R. Ferro Alloys - V/s - Director General (Investigation) Contempt Petition No. : 1628 OF 2013 M/s S. R. Ferro Alloys - V/s - Mr. Amrendra Tiwari & others Present : Hon ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. Hon ble Shri Justice S.K. Gangele. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R. S. Jaiswal, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Sumit Nema and Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Kaushik, learned counsel with Shri Sanjay Lal and Madam Anjana Sen, learned counsel for respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER 13 04 2015 They are heard on I. A. No. 2010/15. 2. It is prayer of petitioner in this inter-locutory application that they be permitted to withdraw writ petition as they have preferred application for settlement of matter in accordance with provisions of Chapter 19 of Income Tax Act before Settlement Commission, Mumbai u/s 245 C. 3. Shri Kaushik representing revenue has filed detailed objection and points out that while hearing of matter was in progress and when certain inter-locutory orders have been passed on 26.09.13 and subsequently, on 19.09.14, respondent department had filed application bearing I. A. No. 13670/13 before this Court and pointed out to this Court that certain documents and material submitted by petitioner in these proceedings, are fabricated, not genuine and according to respondents this amounts to forgery and misuse of process of law. It is pointed out by Shri Kaushik that while considering said objection, this Court had observed that 2 application and documents filed in this regard shall be considered at time of final hearing and prayer made for taking action against petitioner in this regard has been post-poned. It is submitted that unless this application i.e. I. A. No. 13670/13 is not decided, withdrawal of writ petition cannot be granted. 4. We have considered rival contentions and we are of considered view that allegations indicated in I. A. No. 13670/13 cannot prevent petitioner from prosecuting and to take recourse to remedy available before Settlement Commission under statutory provisions. At same time, if petitioner has misused process of law in matter of submission of any documents and has committed forgery as indicated in I. A. No. 13670/13 filed by respondent department, consequential action for same has to be taken as per law. However for this, it is not necessary to prevent withdrawal of petition or keep petition pending, instead liberty is granted to department to initiate action under Section 215 of Constitution or any other provisions like Section 340 Cr. P. C. which permits respondents to seek action against petitioner with regard to allegations made in I. A. No. 13670/13 as this right of department is always available, therefore withdrawal of petition will not interfere with said right or cause any adverse effect on this right. Accordingly, we dispose of writ petition in following manner :- I. A. No. 2010/15 filed by petitioner for withdrawal of petition on grounds raised stated therein is allowed, petition is permitted to be withdrawn. It is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. As far as orders on I. A. No. 13670/13 and prayer made for taking consequential action in matter is concerned, we do not deem it appropriate to pass any order in these proceedings as same needs detailed enquiry, filing counter affidavit etc. In case, department feels that on account of allegations made in I. A. No. 13670/13 action is to be taken against petitioner, we grant liberty to respondent department to take such steps as may be permissible under law for initiating such action. Therefore, with regard to grievance ventilated in I. A. No. 13670/13, we grant liberty to respondent department to proceed as per law. However, before parting we may observe that we have not entered into said controversy and leave it 3 open to be considered by competent authority or forum as and when matter is agitated by department. 5. With aforesaid, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn and contempt application is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (RAJENDRA MENON) (S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE JUDGE vy/- M/s S. R. Ferro Alloys v. Director General (Investigation)