Globus Infocom Limited & Anr. Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Globus Infocom Limited & Anr. filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash a criminal complaint (No.2152/2023) pending adjudication before the ACMM, New Delhi, Patiala House Courts, along with the summons issued pursuant to an order dated 04.12.2023.
Case Details
1. Chronology of Proceedings: The complaint was filed by the respondents on 28.02.2023. Several hearings were conducted without cognizance being taken on the complaint. On 04.12.2023, summons were issued against the petitioners without specific directions or orders for summoning them.
2. Challenge to Summoning: The petitioners argued that summons were issued without cognizance being taken or specific directions for summoning them. They also highlighted that the Principal Commissioner of Customs had dropped proceedings against them on 15.09.2023, which was not considered before issuing the summons.
Court’s Decision
- Prima Facie Merit: The court found the contentions raised by the petitioners to be of considerable merit. It noted that summons should not have been issued without specific orders or directions for summoning the petitioners.
- Directions to ACMM: The court directed that the factual position be brought to the notice of the ACMM for consideration. The ACMM was instructed to determine if the summons were issued in accordance with the law. If the summons were found to be valid, the petitioners were given liberty to challenge the summoning order, considering the order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs.
- Exemption from Appearance: The petitioners were exempted from appearing before the ACMM on 08.04.2024, subject to an application being preferred through counsel.
- Disposition: The petition was disposed of, and pending applications were also disposed of accordingly. A copy of the order was forwarded to the ACMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, for information and compliance.
Conclusion: The court found merit in the petitioners’ arguments regarding the issuance of summons without specific orders or directions. It directed the matter to be brought to the ACMM’s notice for consideration, allowing the petitioners to challenge the summoning order if necessary.
