Departmental exoneration on merits can bar Customs prosecution, though pending Supreme Court review may defer quashing.

A criminal complaint under the Customs Act based on the same allegations as a departmental adjudication that ended in exoneration on merits would ordinarily not be allowed to continue, because prosecution in those circumstances may amount to abuse of process. The pending Supreme Court challenge to the exoneration, however, justified deferring final interference, so the complaint was kept in abeyance and could be revived if the challenge succeeded. Interim protection was continued during the pendency of the Supreme Court proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether a criminal complaint under the Customs Act could be quashed when the accused had been exonerated on merits in departmental adjudication on the same allegations, and whether the pendency of an SLP against that exoneration warranted keeping the petition in abeyance.

Analysis: Where departmental adjudication on the same set of facts concludes on merits that the alleged contravention is not established, the criminal complaint founded on that adjudication cannot ordinarily be permitted to proceed, as continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process. The pendency of a challenge to the exoneration order before the Supreme Court, however, was treated as a practical reason to defer final interference so that the complaint could be revived if the appellate challenge succeeded.

Conclusion: The petitioner was found entitled to quashing in principle, but the matter was adjourned sine die awaiting the result of the pending Supreme Court proceedings, with interim protection continued.

---