Inherent quashing jurisdiction cannot bypass statutory compounding where prosecution has already begun under the Customs regime.
A criminal complaint under the Customs Act could not be quashed under Section 482 CrPC merely because the accused had settled the duty demand and obtained immunity from penalty and fine. Once prosecution had already been instituted, the Settlement Commission could not grant immunity from prosecution, and the statutory scheme made that relief unavailable. The Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005 provided the proper post-prosecution route, but it had not been used. In these circumstances, inherent jurisdiction was not to be invoked to bypass the statutory mechanism, and the complaint was allowed to proceed, leaving the petitioners free to seek compounding under the 2005 Rules.
Issues: Whether a criminal complaint under the Customs Act could be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after the accused had paid the customs duty pursuant to settlement proceedings, despite the Settlement Commission having refused immunity from prosecution because prosecution had already begun.
Analysis: The petitioners had obtained settlement of the duty demand and immunity from penalty and fine, but the Settlement Commission could not grant immunity from prosecution once prosecution had already been instituted. The Court held that the statutory scheme itself made immunity from prosecution unavailable in such a situation. It further noted that the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005 provided an alternate statutory route for compounding even after institution of prosecution, and that route had not been pursued. In these circumstances, invocation of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the complaint was not warranted.
Conclusion: The petition for quashing was not maintainable on these grounds and failed.
Final Conclusion: The criminal complaint was allowed to proceed, while the petitioners were left at liberty to seek compounding under the applicable 2005 Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides a specific post-prosecution remedy such as compounding, and the applicant has not availed that remedy, inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings should not be used to bypass the statutory scheme, especially where immunity from prosecution is barred by the statute once prosecution has already commenced.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
