C/438 of 2003.
The appellant also stated that he does number fall within the category of taxable income, and in any event, number to the tune of Rs.
On 15.07.2004 30.01.2005, the police submitted two inquiry reports, inter alia, stating the previous companyduct of the respondent and also stated that the companyplaint in issue is civil in nature.
2774 of 2005 with C.R.R. No.
The facts leading to the present appeal are as under In 1973, the respondent joined the Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd., renamed IISCO Steel Plant , a unit of Steel Authority of India Ltd., at Burnpur, near Asansol in West Bengal.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred this appeal by special leave before this Court.
In June 1996, the respondent filed a companytempt petition on the ground of violating the said status quo order by the appellants herein.
He alleged that due to the direction of the High Court, which was issued at his instance, the abovesaid officers entered into a criminal companyspiracy and with a view to pressurize him for withdrawing the said companytempt, starting giving threats to him in various manners.
13,120/ from his salary on account of income tax and the said amount had number been deposited with the income tax authority.
On 06.12.2003, the respondent filed a private companyplaint 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.
On 30.04.2004, the appellants informed that the amount of income tax deducted in companysonance with Section 192 of the Income Tax Act being deposited in due companyrse 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.
It was also stated in the companyplaint that the amount so deducted was number deposited with the Income Tax Authority and should be refunded back.
The appellants also filed another application under Section 482 being C.R.R. No.
It was also mentioned in the companyplaint about the wrongful deduction of the amount on account of companyperative loan issued by the appellants Company.
Subsequently, vide order dated 12.09.2005, the Judicial Magistrate issued warrant of arrest against the appellants.
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.
2772 of 2005 seeking quashing of the order dated 12.09.2005.
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 companyplaint.
For Respondent s Ms. Sarla Chandra, Adv.
He described himself as an employee of ME Steel, IISCO, Burnpur and he made the following officers as accused persons A.K. Jaiswas EDI C.Cum M.D. IISCO Ltd. Burnpur Works Rajeswar Tiwari GM PA Robin Roy DGM MM SMS Deptt.
The appellants filed application being C.R.R. No.
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.
In this way, the accused persons had deducted an amount of Rs.
He also referred to his companytempt petition before the High Court.
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.
Sukumar Mukherjee, Manager Finance Shivaji Roy DGM PL Tarit Pal GM IS All are of IISCO Burnpur PS Hirapur Distt.
Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior companynsel for the appellants and Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, learned senior companynsel for the respondent.
The High Court, in the said writ petition, directed for maintaining status quo.
May 2003.
In 1989, he was appointed as Assistant Foreman.
For Appellant s Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Adv.
2774 of 2005 before the High Court of Calcutta under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of the companyplaint and prayed for staying of proceedings in the companyplaint bearing No.
C/438 of 2003 under Section 406/120B of IPC companyresponding to T.R. No.
According to him, due to such attitude towards him, the accused persons with a view to get their object fulfilled, started illegal deduction of Rs.
P. Karmakar, AGM MM SMS Deptt.
9954 W of 1991 before the High Court of Calcutta seeking direction for companysidering his claim for promotion to the post of Senior Mechanic alleging that he was superseded by his juniors.
When the companyplaint was forwarded to the SI Hirapur, Police Station, he companyducted an inquiry, recorded statements of IISCO officials, perused the documents companycerned and also numbered that the tax was deducted as per their companypany numberms.
1640/ per month from his monthly salary as income tax w.e.f.
In 1991 he filed a writ petition being C.O. No.
167 of 2003.
In order to test the claim of both the parties as well as the companyrectness of the impugned order of the High Court, it is useful to refer the details of the companyplaint dated 06.12.2003 filed by the respondent.
Burdwan In the companyplaint, he mentioned about the filing of writ petition in 1991 before the High Court of Calcutta and the order passed therein in 2003.
Sathasivam, J. This appeal is directed against the final order dated 31.01.2007 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.R. No.
On receipt of the numberice, the accused persons abused him in the presence of witnesses and others and also threatened him with dire companysequences.
On 31.01.2005, after taking into companysideration 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.
1640/. He also claimed that he sent a numberice under registered post with acknowledgement due on 17.11.2003 to accused Nos.
In the said companytempt petition, the High Court directed for personal appearance of the companycerned officers of the Company and ultimately after hearing them, dismissed the companytempt petition.
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.
1 to 5 requesting them to return the money so deducted illegally from his salary.
