2017 (1) TMI 1812 - SCH - Indian Laws

Supreme Court quashes 1994 complaint, orders payment for Drugs Control Department employees

The Supreme Court quashed a 1994 complaint after 22 years, ordering Hindustan Unilever Limited to pay Rs. 10 lakhs for the welfare of Drugs Control ... Quashing of criminal complaint in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction - closure of long-pending proceedings in the interest of justice due to inordinate and oppressive delay - conditional relief by directing payment for public/welfare purpose as alternative to prolonged prosecutionQuashing of criminal complaint in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction - closure of long-pending proceedings in the interest of justice due to inordinate and oppressive delay - The complaint filed in 1994 was quashed and the proceedings were ordered to be closed without adjudicating the merits. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the complaint had been pending since 1994 and remained at a nascent stage after more than 22 years. Without entering into the merits of rival contentions, the Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to put an end to the prolonged proceedings and granted quashing of the complaint as an appropriate measure in the interest of justice. The order effects a discretionary termination of criminal proceedings on the stated basis of excessive delay and the prolonged nature of litigation rather than on any adjudication of the substantive allegations.Complaint quashed and proceedings closed by exercise of the Court's discretionary jurisdiction, without deciding merits.Conditional relief by directing payment for public/welfare purpose as alternative to prolonged prosecution - Hindustan Unilever Limited was directed to make a contribution of Rs.10 lakhs to the Drugs Control Department of Uttar Pradesh for welfare of its employees as a condition attendant to the quashing order. - HELD THAT: - The Court proposed and recorded a consensual arrangement whereby, as incident to granting the discretionary relief of quashing, the company to which the accused are employed would pay the amount suggested by the Court. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners accepted the figure of Rs.10 lakhs and stated, on instructions, that Hindustan Unilever Limited would deposit the sum with the Drugs Control Department, which would utilise it for welfare activity or project for the benefit of its employees. The direction operates as a condition accompanying the discretionary termination of proceedings and is intended for public/welfare use rather than as a punitive or compensatory award.Company directed to deposit Rs.10 lakhs with the Drugs Control Department for employee welfare; the Department to apply the sum for such welfare activities.Final Conclusion: The special leave petitions are disposed of: the long-pending complaint (filed 1994) is quashed in the exercise of the Court's discretionary jurisdiction and, as a concomitant arrangement acceptable to the petitioners, Hindustan Unilever Limited is directed to deposit Rs.10 lakhs with the Drugs Control Department of Uttar Pradesh to be spent on welfare of its employees. The Supreme Court quashed a complaint filed in 1994 after 22 years, directing Hindustan Unilever Limited to contribute Rs. 10 lakhs for welfare of Drugs Control Department employees in Uttar Pradesh. The company agreed to pay and the case was disposed of accordingly.