2010 (4) TMI 554 - HC - Central Excise

High Court quashes complaint; Settlement Commission's decision set aside for fresh adjudication

SANGHVI ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The High Court quashed the complaint filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the Settlement Commission's rejection of the ... Settlement and prosecution – simultaneous proceedings:- Held that – simultaneous proceedings can not continue - writ petition is allowed, criminal complaints pending in the court quashed and set aside Issues:Challenging order of issuance of process and summons in a complaint case under Customs Act, Settlement Commission's rejection of applications, filing of complaint before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, quashing the complaint, liberty to file a fresh complaint.Analysis:The petitioners challenged the order of issuance of process and summons in a complaint case under the Customs Act. They had filed applications before the Settlement Commission seeking settlement of the case, which were rejected. The matter was taken to the High Court, which set aside the Settlement Commission's order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. However, a complaint was filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate after the rejection of the petitioners' applications by the Settlement Commission.The petitioners argued that since the Settlement Commission's earlier order was set aside and the matter remanded, the complaint before the Magistrate should be quashed. They cited judgments from the Andhra Pradesh High Court and a Single Judge of the High Court in support of their argument. Respondent No. 3 submitted that if the Settlement Commission rejects the applications, they should be allowed to file a fresh complaint or the existing complaint should be stayed.The Court found it appropriate to quash the complaint since the petitioners' applications before the Settlement Commission were still pending and were to be decided. If the applications were allowed, the complaint would become infructuous. The Court noted that the complaint was filed after the rejection of the petitioners' applications by the Settlement Commission, and since the matter was remanded, the proceedings could not continue.As a result, the writ petition was allowed, and the criminal complaints pending in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate were quashed. Respondents were granted liberty to file a fresh complaint if an adverse order was passed by the Settlement Commission on the petitioners' applications. The petitioners were instructed not to raise objections to the second complaint. The Settlement Commission was directed to decide the applications expeditiously and in accordance with the law.The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.