Inherent jurisdiction to quash complaint and summoning order after undisputed compliance before the investigating officer

Undisputed compliance by the petitioner before the investigating officer, including subsequent appearance and recording of his statement, removed the basis for continuing the complaint and the summoning order. The HC held that once the petitioner had tendered his statement as directed and the respondent did not dispute the earlier inability to record it, the complaint and summoning order could not be sustained in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. They were therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint and summoning order deserved to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction after the petitioner appeared before the concerned officer and tendered his statement.

Analysis: The petitioner had earlier appeared before the office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, and the respondent did not dispute that his statement could not be recorded on that occasion. Pursuant to the Court's direction, the petitioner again appeared before the concerned officer and tendered his statement on the subsequent dates fixed. In view of this undisputed compliance, the basis for continuing the complaint and the summoning order no longer survived.

Conclusion: The complaint and the summoning order were quashed in favour of the petitioner.

---