Allahabad High Court
Anupam Mehta And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 February, 2020
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7766 of 2020 Applicant :- Anupam Mehta And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suyash Agarwal,Ankur Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. R.R. Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Suyash Agarwal and Mr. Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 28th May, 2019, order dated 6th January, 2020 issuing bailable warrant against the applicants as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 8160 of 2017 (Union of India Vs. M/s Super Fashion Fastener Private Ltd. & Others) under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no offence is made out against the applicants under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, as the Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench at Allahabad vide its final order dated 28th February, 2018 had set aside the order in original dated 14th March, 2018 and adjudicated the same on merits and an unambiguous finding that there is no such contravention of the provisions of the Act, has been recorded by the Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench at Allahabad, hence any subsequent criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants by the Revenue department shall be in abuse of the process of court.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the both the opposite parties have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Raghuvashi, learned counsel for the Union of India has submitted that against the final order of the Tribunal dated 28th February, 2018, the department/Revenue has filed Excise Appeal (D) No. 99 of 2018 before this Court, which has been admitted by this Court. He further submits that the Apex Court in its various judgments has restrained the High Court having jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. not to quash the summoning order/entire proceedings of a complaint. He, therefore, submits that the present application is liable to be rejected.
5. In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.
6. As requested, the applicants are permitted to appear before the concerned court within four weeks from today and move an application claiming discharge. The concerned court shall decide the application on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the production of the certified copy of this order.
7. No coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicants for a period of two months from today or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier.
8. If the concerned court feels persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application. On the other hand, if the lower court holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material brought on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits.
9. With the above observations, this application stands disposed of.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 25.2.2020 Sushil/-