AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.M. Kanade, J.—Heard Counsel for the petitioners and Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3.
The petitioners by this petition which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. is challenging the order of issuance of process dated 7th January, 2010 and the summons dated 27th January, 2010 in a complaint Case No. 26/SW/2010.
A Show Cause Notice was issued by the respondents to the petitioners u/s 124 of the Customs Act. Applications were filed by the petitioners thereafter before the Settlement Commission, Mumbai, seeking settlement of the case. The Settlement Commission, however, rejected the applications filed by the petitioners herein by his order dated 12th May, 2006. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order preferred Writ Petition Nos. 3907 and 3908 of 2006 before this Court challenging the order passed by the Settlement Commission. This Court by judgment and order dated 13th January, 2010 set aside the order passed by the Settlement Commission and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. However, in the meantime, Respondent No. 3, after the Settlement Commission rejected the applications of the petitioners herein, filed the complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, on 7th January, 2010 and process was issued on the said complaint.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that since the earlier order passed by the Settlement Commission dated 12th May, 2006 was subsequently set aside by this Court in the two writ petitions filed by the petitioners herein and since the matter is remanded to the Settlement Commission, the complaint which is filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may be quashed. In support of the said submission, the learned Counsel has relied on judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Richman Silks Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commr. (Legal), Cus. and C. Ex., and also on judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1921/2005 in the case of Choudhary International Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. wherein in similar cases, a complaint was quashed.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that in the event, the Settlement Commission rejects the applications filed by the petitioners herein, liberty may be granted to the respondents to file a fresh complaint or in the alternative, the said complaint filed by the respondent may be stayed pending further orders by the Settlement Commission.
In my view, it would be appropriate if the said complaint is quashed since the applications which are filed by the petitioners before the Settlement Commission are still pending and are to be decided by the Settlement Commission. If the said applications are allowed, the complaint becomes in fructuous. In any event, the said complaint was filed after the petitioners applications were rejected by the Settlement Commission. However, since the matter is now remanded to the Settlement Commission, the said proceedings, therefore, cannot be continued.
In the result, writ petition is allowed. The criminal complaints pending in the court of additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Esplanade, Mumbai, vide C.C. No. 26/SW/2010 is quashed and set aside. Liberty, however, is granted to the Respondents No. 2 and 3 to file a fresh complaint, in the event, any adverse order is passed by the settlement commission on the application filed by the petitioners herein. The petitioners shall undertake not to raise any objection in respect of the second complaint which is filed. The Settlement Commission may decide the applications, expeditiously and in accordance with law.
Writ Petition is disposed of.