9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal complaints. 2. Stay of criminal proceedings due to pending adjudication proceedings. 3. Allegations of mala fides. 4. Similarity between show cause notices and criminal complaints. 5. Application of discretionary power under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. Application of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of Criminal Complaints: The petitioners sought to quash the criminal complaints instituted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Delhi. The criminal complaints followed show cause notices issued under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners contended that the criminal complaints should be quashed as the adjudication process was still ongoing, and the criminal complaints were premature. 2. Stay of Criminal Proceedings Due to Pending Adjudication Proceedings:The petitioners argued that the criminal proceedings should be kept in abeyance due to the pendency of adjudication proceedings. They asserted that the outcome of the adjudication proceedings would have a significant bearing on the criminal cases. The respondents countered that there is no invariable rule that criminal proceedings must be stayed whenever adjudication proceedings are pending. The Court noted that while it is not mandatory to stay criminal proceedings in such scenarios, the relevance and bearing of the adjudication proceedings on the criminal case should be considered by the trial court. 3. Allegations of Mala Fides:The petitioners alleged mala fides on the part of the respondents, pointing out that the criminal complaint was filed just three days after the issuance of the show cause notice. They argued that the timing and the substantial similarity between the show cause notice and the criminal complaint indicated bad faith. The respondents refuted this, stating that the similarity was due to the identical fact situations relevant to both proceedings. 4. Similarity Between Show Cause Notices and Criminal Complaints:The petitioners highlighted that 59 out of 63 pages of the criminal complaint were identical to the show cause notices, suggesting that the criminal complaints were not independently substantiated. The respondents maintained that the similarity was justified given the overlapping factual basis of both proceedings. The Court acknowledged the similarity but did not find it sufficient to quash the criminal complaints outright. 5. Application of Discretionary Power Under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:The Court referred to several precedents, including P. Jayappan v. S.K. Perumal, which emphasized that while criminal courts have the discretion to adjourn or postpone hearings if adjudication proceedings have a bearing on the criminal case, this discretion must be exercised judicially. The Court reiterated that there is no rigid rule necessitating the indefinite adjournment of criminal cases due to pending adjudication proceedings, but the relevance of the adjudication outcome should be considered. 6. Application of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:The Court discussed the provision under Section 205, which allows a Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit them to appear through a pleader. The petitioners were directed to appear before the ACMM and file appropriate applications under Section 205. The ACMM was instructed to consider these applications and decide on the necessity of the petitioners' personal attendance based on the circumstances of the case. Conclusion:The Court disposed of the petitions with specific directions: The petitions were disposed of with the above directions, and the Court refrained from making any findings on the relevance of the adjudication proceedings to the criminal cases, leaving that determination to the trial court.
|
