2024 (9) TMI 128 - HC - Customs

Seeking quashing of Complaint u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. - framing of charges without properly assessing the material on record - HELD THAT - Undoubtedly, this Court is vested with extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS. However, these powers must be exercised with the utmost caution and circumspection. When dealing with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS, the Court s focus should be limited to determining whether the complaints/FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage, the Court cannot go beyond the allegations made in the complaint by examining the defence presented by the accused/petitioner, nor can it consider the material relied upon by the petitioner. In the present case, as per allegations levelled in the complaint, the petitioner deliberately provided incorrect information about the country of origin of the goods in question, stating it as Iraq, in order to evade customs duty and taxes. Although the petitioner has directed the attention of this Court to various documents, bills and other annexures attached with the instant petition, once the complaint prima facie reveals the commission of cognizable offences, the Court cannot investigate the veracity of the allegations by considering the documents submitted by the petitioner while deciding a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS. Instead, the petitioner in the present case has raised several disputed questions of fact, which can only be examined during the trial, where both the parties will present their evidence and such evidence will then be tested on the touchstone of cross examination. The instant petition stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of Complaint and Charges under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought the quashing of Complaint No. COMA/7258/2021 and the charges framed on 20.02.2024 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. The petitioners argued that the complaint was baseless and lacked evidence, alleging that the respondent had fabricated a false case against them. They emphasized their good faith in importing a consignment of 'Dry Dates' from Iraq, supported by various documents like the bill of entry, invoice, packing list, bill of lading, and certificates confirming Iraq as the origin of the goods. The petitioners contended that the complaint was filed with malicious intent to harass them, constituting a misuse of the legal process.

The learned counsel highlighted that the petitioners had ordered 'dry small dates' from Iraq based on suppliers' documentation consistently confirming Iraq as the origin of the goods. They even verified with the supplier, who confirmed that the goods were not of Pakistani origin. The counsel argued that the trial court erred in framing charges without properly assessing the material on record and ignoring the evidence provided by the petitioners. Thus, they requested the quashing of both the complaint and the charges as unfounded allegations.

In the judgment, it was emphasized that the Court's powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised cautiously and limited to determining if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence. The Court cannot delve into the defense or evidence presented by the accused while deciding a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Despite the documents submitted by the petitioners, once the complaint prima facie reveals cognizable offenses, the Court cannot investigate the allegations' veracity at this stage. Disputed questions of fact raised by the petitioners can only be examined during the trial, where both parties will present evidence subject to cross-examination.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the instant petition, clarifying that the decision did not express an opinion on the case's merits. The judgment underscored the need to reserve detailed factual examinations for trial proceedings, indicating that the petitioners' arguments and evidence would be scrutinized in that forum.