An auditor’s filing error under client instructions does not, without more, disclose a criminal offence.

The petitioner, a chartered accountant, had been engaged by Tripura Medical College and Dr. BRAM Teaching Hospital (TMC) to conduct its audit and file the relevant income-tax report.

TMC alleged that he filed the report in Form 10BB instead of Form 10B, resulting in a tax demand of ₹10.08 crore, and later demanded ₹1 lakh to file a corrected report and refused to swear an affidavit explaining the delay.

On TMC’s complaint, West Agartala P.S. Case No. 041 of 2025 was registered against him under Sections 167, 193, 384, 420 and 409 IPC.

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS.

The Court considered the engagement memorandum, subsequent correspondence and the petitioner’s affidavit concerning the revised filing.

1. Whether the FIR allegations, taken at face value, disclosed the commission of any offence under Sections 167, 193, 384, 420 or 409 IPC.

2. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings warranted the High Court’s exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS.

Section 482 CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS) empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) AIR 604, quashing may be appropriate, among other circumstances, where the FIR allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence.

The Court also considered Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy, (2025) LiveLaw (SC) 712, concerning the effect of parallel civil proceedings, but distinguished it on the facts.

The Court relied on the engagement memorandum, which it understood to have required filing in Form 10BB, and TMC’s later communications asking the petitioner to submit a revised report in Form 10B.

It also noted the petitioner’s affidavit stating that the amended requirements had escaped the firm’s attention and that the revised Form 10B was filed on 17 December 2024, 37 days after the extended deadline.

On the material before it, the Court found no basis to infer the alleged criminal offences, including extortion or criminal breach of trust, and considered that the FIR did not disclose a cognizable offence.

Applying Bhajan Lal, it concluded that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.

It quashed West Agartala P.S. Case No. 041 of 2025, registered under Sections 167, 193, 384, 420 and 409 IPC, and ordered that the petitioner be discharged from the case.