2015 (2) TMI 459 - HC - Indian Laws

Court quashes complaint and summoning order, stresses procedural fairness

AABHAS DALMIA Versus DIRECTOR OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

The Court quashed complaint No. 51 and the summoning order dated 24-2-2010 under Sections 173, 174, and 175 IPC. The petitioner's compliance with ... Offenses under Sections 173, 174 and 175 IPC - Statement of petitioner not recorded - Held that:- even on the last date of hearing Court directed the petitioner to appear before the DRI, once again, on 2-8-2013 for tendering his statement. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner did appear before the DRI on 2-8-2013 and tendered his statement before Shri Kamaljit Singh, Senior Intelligence Officer, who directed him to, once again, put in appearance on 12-8-2013. Even on 12-8-2013, the petitioner appeared before the Senior Intelligence Officer and tendered his statement. All these facts have been stated by the petitioner in his duly sworn affidavit dated 16-8-2013, which has been produced and taken on record and a copy thereof supplied to counsel for the respondent. These facts are also not disputed by counsel for the respondent. - Court has no other option but to quash complaint No. 51, dated 24-2-2010 and set-aside the summoning order dated 24-2-2010 passed by the trial Court - Decided in favour of appellant. Issues: Quashing of complaint and summoning order under Sections 173, 174, and 175 IPCAnalysis:The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking to quash complaint No. 51 and the summoning order dated 24-2-2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner had appeared before the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on 30-12-2009 to give his statement, but it could not be recorded as the officials were busy. The respondent's counsel acknowledged this fact and mentioned that the petitioner appeared with his father, but the statement could not be recorded due to the DRI staff being on a secret duty.The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the DRI again on 2-8-2013, where he gave his statement to the Senior Intelligence Officer. The petitioner was asked to appear again on 12-8-2013, and he complied. The petitioner submitted a sworn affidavit on 16-8-2013 detailing these events, which was not disputed by the respondent's counsel. Based on these undisputed facts, the Court had no choice but to quash the complaint and summoning order dated 24-2-2010.The Court's decision was to quash complaint No. 51 and set aside the summoning order dated 24-2-2010. However, a directive was issued for the petitioner to appear before the concerned officer whenever called for further questioning. This judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements in criminal proceedings.