P.Sathasivam,J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the final order dated 31.01.2007 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.R. No. 2774 of 2005 with C.R.R. No. 2772 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the applications filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) by the appellants to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Asansol, being Case No. C/438 of 2003 under Section 406/120B of IPC corresponding to T.R. No. 167 of 2003.
(2.) The facts leading to the present appeal are as under: (a) In 1973, the respondent joined the Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd., (renamed II SC O Steel Plant), a unit of Steel Authority of India Ltd., at Burnpur, near Asansol in West Bengal. In 1989, he was appointed as Assistant Foreman. In 1991 he filed a writ petition being CO. No. 9954(W) of 1991 before the High Court of Calcutta seeking direction for considering his claim for promotion to the post of Senior Mechanic alleging that he was superseded by his juniors. On 19.01.1995, the respondent filed another writ petition praying for interim order restraining the appellants from filling up the post of Assistant Foreman. The High Court, in the said writ petition, directed for maintaining status quo. In June 1996, the respondent filed a contempt petition on the ground of violating the said status quo order by the appellants herein. In the said contempt petition, the High Court directed for personal appearance of the concerned officers of the Company and ultimately after hearing them, dismissed the contempt petition. (b) On 06.12.2003, the respondent filed a private complaint being C/438 of 2003 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol under Sections 461/468/406 read with Section 120B of IPC against the appellants herein alleging discrimination by unduly deducting Rs. 1,640/- p.m. from the monthly salary as Income Tax. It was also stated in the complaint that the amount so deducted was not deposited with the Income Tax Authority and should be refunded back. It was also mentioned in the complaint about the wrongful deduction of the amount on account of cooperative loan issued by the appellants/Company. On examination of the witnesses under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate directed the Officer-in-Charge P.S. Hirapur to cause an inquiry into the allegations made in the complaint. On 30.04.2004, the appellants informed that the amount of income tax deducted in consonance with Section 192 of the Income Tax Act being deposited in due course as tax to the credit of employee/respondent in terms of Section 199 of the Income Tax Act as uniformly done in respect of every employee and also produced Form No-16 of the respondent for the period from 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004. On 15.07.2004 & 30.01.2005, the police submitted two inquiry reports, inter alia, stating the previous conduct of the respondent and also stated that the complaint in issue is civil in nature. On 31.01.2005, after taking into consideration the inquiry reports of the police, the Judicial Magistrate, Asansol directed issuance of summons against the appellants for an offence under Section 406/120B of the Indian Penal Code. In response to the summons, the appellants made an application under Section 205 of the Code before the Judicial Magistrate and the same was rejected by an order dated 26.07.2005. Subsequently, vide order dated 12.09.2005, the Judicial Magistrate issued warrant of arrest against the appellants. The appellants filed application being C.R.R. No. 2774 of 2005 before the High Court of Calcutta under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of the complaint and prayed for staying of proceedings in the complaint bearing No. C/438 of 2003. The appellants also filed another application under Section 482 being C.R.R. No. 2772 of 2005 seeking quashing of the order dated 12.09.2005. The High Court, by order dated 31.01.2007, rejected the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings and disposed of both the applications with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the matter within a period of six months. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred this appeal by special leave before this Court.
(3.) Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, learned senior counsel for the respondent.;