Inherent criminal jurisdiction and prima facie case requirements governed quashing of an unsustainable summoning order.

Section 482 CrPC is not barred merely because a revision remedy exists, and the inherent jurisdiction may still be exercised where interference is justified; the petition was therefore maintainable. On the merits, the complaint and sanction material did not disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner, as the admitted facts showed no direct involvement and no statutory basis for vicarious criminal liability. Section 138A of the Customs Act was not attracted on the facts, and the summoning order under Section 204 CrPC could not be sustained. The proceedings were quashed against the petitioner, while the case against the remaining accused continued.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable despite availability of a revision remedy; (ii) whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner and whether the summoning order under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable despite availability of a revision remedy.

Analysis: The inherent power preserved by Section 482 is not excluded merely because a revision remedy is available. The existence of an alternate remedy does not create an absolute bar to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction where the facts justify interference.

Conclusion: The petition was held to be maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner and whether the summoning order under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be sustained.

Analysis: On the admitted facts, the petitioner was not present at the place of interception and her statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 indicated that her father handled the procurement and paperwork. The complaint and the sanction material did not show direct involvement of the petitioner in the alleged syndicate or sufficient material to attribute the alleged offences to her. The Court held that the allegations, at best, suggested use of her licence by her father, but did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences against her. In criminal law, liability cannot be fastened vicariously in the absence of a statutory basis, and Section 138A of the Customs Act, 1962 was not attracted on the facts found.

Conclusion: The complaint did not disclose a prima facie offence against the petitioner and the summoning order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were quashed against the petitioner, while the case against the other accused was left to continue in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A summons under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be issued only where the complaint and supporting material disclose sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, and criminal liability cannot be imposed vicariously without a clear legal basis or prima facie material connecting the accused to the alleged offence.

---