2023 (12) TMI 200 - HC - Customs

Petition to Quash FIR Dismissed Due to Lack of Standing; Court Allows Application for Custody of Seized Truck and Goods.

The HC dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash FIR No.636/2023 under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, as the petitioner lacked locus standi, not ... Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- The relief prayed by the petitioner not granted, for quashment of FIR as the petitioners/company is not an accused in the FIR and they have no locus to seek quashment of FIR. In regard to the relief for custody of vehicle and goods, the remedy lies to the petitioners, to apply for custody of the vehicle and goods under Section 451 & Section 457 of Cr.P.C. The said prayer cannot be considered in a writ jurisdiction when the remedy is available to the petitioners. However, the liberty is granted to the petitioners to file an application under Section 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C before the competent Court of law and if such application is filed, the Court shall consider the said application in accordance with the law without being influenced by the order dated 6/11/2023 rejecting the application for custody of vehicle and goods, filed by accused driver. The petition is dismissed. Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the quashing of FIR u/s 34(2) of Excise Act and the release of a truck and its goods seized by the police.Quashing of FIR:The writ petition was filed u/s Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash FIR No.636/2023 dated 30/10/2023, registered for an offence u/s 34(2) of the Excise Act against an individual. The petitioner argued that the M.P. Excise Act does not apply to customs goods being transported between bonded customs warehouses. However, the court held that since the petitioner/company was not an accused in the FIR, they lacked the locus to seek quashment of the FIR. The court dismissed the petition on this ground.Release of Truck and Goods:The petitioner sought the release of a truck and its goods seized by the police. The respondent raised a preliminary objection stating that the petitioner company cannot seek quashment of the FIR as they were not accused in the case. The court agreed with this objection and mentioned that the remedy for custody of the vehicle and goods lies with the petitioners under Section 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. The court granted liberty to the petitioners to file an application before the competent court for custody of the vehicle and goods, disregarding the previous order dismissing a similar application filed by the accused driver. The petition was ultimately dismissed with this liberty granted to the petitioners.