High Court dismisses petition to quash criminal complaint under Customs Act. Judge emphasizes statutory remedies and jurisdictional issues.

The petition for quashing the criminal complaint under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was dismissed by the High Court. The judge emphasized the petitioners' failure to utilize the statutory remedy for seeking compounding of the offences they were being prosecuted for. The judge also addressed the jurisdictional issue, advising the petitioners to raise it before the trial court and approach the Compounding Authority under the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005 for seeking compounding of the offences.

---

---

Issues:
Quashing of criminal complaint under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 pending against petitioners in the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners sought quashing of a criminal complaint under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 pending against them. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigated the petitioners for importing electronic goods from Hong Kong at undervalued prices. Notices were issued demanding customs duty from the petitioners. A criminal complaint was filed against them. The petitioners approached the Settlement Commission and agreed to pay the demanded customs duty, receiving immunity from penalty and fine but not from prosecution.

2. The petitioners argued for quashing the criminal complaint, citing a Supreme Court judgment and legislative intent. They contended that paying the customs duty should grant them immunity from prosecution. The Settlement Commission's decision not to grant immunity from prosecution was due to the proceedings being initiated before their application. The petitioners also raised a jurisdictional issue, claiming the complaint should not be maintainable before a Delhi court.

3. The respondent argued against quashing the complaint, emphasizing the Settlement Commission's inability to grant immunity from prosecution once proceedings had commenced. The respondent highlighted the petitioners' failure to withdraw their settlement applications after learning of the prosecution, suggesting they cannot claim victimization due to a technicality.

4. The judge considered both parties' submissions. The judge acknowledged the purpose of settlement provisions to avoid criminal proceedings and financial loss to the government. The judge noted that seeking immunity from prosecution from the Settlement Commission is only possible before the initiation of criminal proceedings. The judge highlighted the availability of seeking compounding of offences under Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005, even after approaching the Settlement Commission.

5. The judge dismissed the petition, citing the petitioners' failure to avail themselves of the statutory remedy for seeking compounding of the offences they were being prosecuted for. The judge also addressed the jurisdictional issue, stating it should be raised before the trial court where the complaint is pending trial. The judge allowed the petitioners to approach the Compounding Authority under the Compounding Rules of 2005 for seeking compounding of the offences.

In conclusion, the petition for quashing the criminal complaint was dismissed due to the petitioners' failure to utilize the statutory remedy available for seeking compounding of the offences. The judge also addressed the jurisdictional issue, suggesting it should be raised before the trial court. The petitioners were advised to approach the Compounding Authority for seeking compounding of the offences they were being prosecuted for.

---