Inherent power to quash cannot override statutory compounding remedies under the Customs Act, and disputed territorial jurisdiction is for trial.
Criminal complaints under the Customs Act are not ordinarily quashed under Section 482 CrPC merely because customs duty has been paid and settlement relief from penalty and fine has been obtained, where the statutory scheme bars immunity from prosecution after proceedings have begun. The Delhi HC noted that the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005 provide an independent route for compounding even after prosecution is instituted, and that remedy must be pursued instead of invoking inherent jurisdiction as a substitute. A territorial-jurisdiction objection based on disputed facts about where the goods were imported and where the offence was completed was held unsuitable for determination in quashing proceedings and left to the trial court.
Issues: (i) Whether the criminal complaint under the Customs Act could be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after the petitioners had paid the demanded customs duty and obtained settlement relief from penalty and fine. (ii) Whether the objection to territorial jurisdiction could be decided in the present proceedings.
Issue (i): Whether the criminal complaint under the Customs Act could be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after the petitioners had paid the demanded customs duty and obtained settlement relief from penalty and fine.
Analysis: The petitioners had approached the Settlement Commission after criminal proceedings had already been instituted, and the statutory bar under the settlement scheme prevented grant of immunity from prosecution at that stage. The judgment further noted that the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005 created an independent statutory route for compounding, available even after institution of prosecution, and that route was not availed of. In these circumstances, the inherent power of the Court was not treated as a substitute for the specific statutory remedy.
Conclusion: The complaint was not liable to be quashed on this ground, and the petition failed on merits.
Issue (ii): Whether the objection to territorial jurisdiction could be decided in the present proceedings.
Analysis: The territorial-jurisdiction plea turned on disputed facts concerning the destination of the imported goods and the place where the offence was completed. Such a factual controversy was considered unsuitable for determination in the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and was left for the trial court.
Conclusion: The jurisdiction objection could not be accepted in the present petition.
Final Conclusion: The petition for quashing was rejected, while the petitioners were left at liberty to pursue the statutory compounding remedy available under the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a specific statutory mechanism for compounding or other relief exists and has not been exhausted, inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings should not be invoked to override the legislative scheme; factual objections to territorial jurisdiction should ordinarily be raised before the trial court.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
