Criminal proceedings may be kept in abeyance where the underlying customs demand is still under revisional challenge.

Criminal proceedings founded on a customs drawback demand may be kept in abeyance when the underlying demand is still under final revisional challenge, because continuing the prosecution could prejudice the parties if the foundational order is later altered. At the same time, discharge under Section 245(2) CrPC need not be granted outright while the customs dispute remains unresolved. The appropriate course is to suspend the complaint for the present and permit revival after final adjudication of the statutory revision, preserving the complainant's right to proceed if the demand is ultimately sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings founded on a customs demand could be kept in abeyance pending final adjudication of the revision challenging the underlying order, and whether the order rejecting discharge under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 required interference.

Analysis: The complaint arose from an order demanding excess drawback, which had already been carried in appeal and revision, and the rival revision was stated to be pending before the revisional authority. In these circumstances, allowing the prosecution to continue could prejudice the parties in the event of a final determination of the foundational customs dispute. At the same time, an outright discharge would also be inappropriate while the underlying order remained under challenge. The proper course was therefore to keep the criminal proceedings in suspension until final adjudication of the dispute by the revisional authority, with liberty to revive the complaint thereafter.

Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal of discharge was not accepted in full, but the criminal proceedings were directed to be stopped for the present, subject to revival after final adjudication of the customs dispute.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution was temporarily halted pending the outcome of the statutory revision, preserving the complainant's right to revive the case after the foundational dispute is finally decided.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the validity of the foundational customs demand is still under final adjudication before the revisional authority, criminal proceedings based on that demand may be kept in abeyance rather than continued or terminated outright.

---