Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a writ petition challenging a criminal complaint filed under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code. The court directed that the petitioner should pursue the revision petition already filed before the appropriate forum, holding that the present writ petition was not maintainable. The Bench stated that the grounds raised had already been considered by the Magistrate and were currently pending adjudication in revision. In light of this, the court found no merit in allowing a parallel challenge through writ jurisdiction and rejected the plea.

The matter originated from a criminal complaint initiated against the petitioner for alleged violations under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) was conducting an investigation into purported misdeclaration and undervaluation of various pesticides. During the investigation, the petitioner was summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. He complied with the summons and provided statements on 02.08.2011 and 14.09.2011.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restructures Judicial Appointments | LDCE Quota Restored To 25% | Three Years’ Bar Practice Mandatory For Entry-Level Judges

The petitioner contended that he fully cooperated during the investigation. However, he was later served with summons in Complaint Case No. 113/1/11. The allegations pertained to vague responses provided during his statement recording on 14.09.2011. It was further alleged that he failed to disclose employee details and bank transactions, and only admitted facts when confronted with documents. Consequently, the complaint accused him of having furnished false information, constituting an offence under Section 177 IPC.

The petitioner sought discharge by filing an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. On 06.06.2016, the application was dismissed, with the court finding a prima facie case under Section 177 IPC. A separate complaint under Sections 132/135 of the Customs Act (Complaint Case No. 125/1/14) had also been filed against the petitioner for the same transaction.

In the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought quashing of Complaint Case No. 113/1/11. The core argument was that no offence under Section 177 IPC was disclosed and that the prosecution amounted to double jeopardy, barred under Section 300 Cr.P.C. and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner submitted that Section 177 IPC applies only when a person is legally bound to furnish information to a public servant. He contended that under the Customs Act, there was no legal contract or obligation to disclose such information to DRI officials. It was argued that the Customs Act is a complete code, with specific provisions such as Section 132 dealing with false declarations. Hence, invoking general provisions under IPC, particularly Section 177, was impermissible.

It was further argued that Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1977, provides that a person cannot be punished under two separate enactments for the same offence. To substantiate the argument, the petitioner relied on multiple precedents:

1. Emperor v. Ganpat Subarao Kashyapi (MANU/MH/0003/1934): held that in the absence of a contract, a person is not legally bound to disclose information.

2. Sukamal Kanti Ghosh v. Soulmari Ashram & Ors. (MANU/WB/0050/1970): reiterated the bar under Article 20(2) against double punishment.

3. Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Ventaeshwara Rao (MANU/SC/0086/2011): clarified that Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. has a broader scope than Article 20(2).

4. Doongarshi Das v. The State (MANU/WB/0046/1965): held that special laws override general provisions.

5. Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise v. R. Surendar (MANU/TN/0139/1992): stated that action under the Customs Act must follow the Act's internal procedures.

6. Zaverbhai Amaidas v. The State of Bombay (MANU/SC/0040/1954): stated that newer statutes override earlier ones when covering the same offence.

The court addressed the arguments raised by the petitioner and examined the judicial record. It recorded:"According to him, a separate Complaint under Section 132 Customs Act, has already been filed for the same offence and the present Complaint is not maintainable, as it tantamount to subjecting the Petitioner to suffer for the same offence twice, which is prohibited under Section 300 Cr.P.C. as well as it amounts to violation of his Constitutional Right protected under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India."

The Bench also noted that the very same arguments had already been placed before the Magistrate through the discharge application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. "Admittedly, he filed a Revision Petition challenging the order of learned MM wherein the same grounds as agitated in the present Writ Petition in addition to other grounds, were taken by on behalf of the Petitioner."

The court acknowledged that since the petitioner had already invoked the appropriate remedy by way of revision, the same issues could not be pursued simultaneously in a separate writ petition. "The Petitioner most appropriately, has availed the appropriate remedy of assailing the order by way of Revision and in these circumstances, the parallel challenge to Complaint on same grounds cannot be agitated by way of this Writ Petition."

Also Read: Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Gratuity Payment To Panchayat Teacher | Vested Right To Gratuity Cannot Be Denied By Misreading Rule 18(2)

The court concluded its observations by pointing out that the petitioner’s approach effectively amounted to bypassing the hierarchy of criminal adjudication. "Filing this Writ Petition amounts to bypassing the determination by learned ASJ and the Petitioner should continue with his Revision rather than seeking a direct challenge to the order of learned MM, by way of present proceedings."

The Court concluded that the grounds presented for quashing the complaint under Section 177 IPC had already been considered and rejected by the Magistrate, and were currently subject to revision proceedings. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that such grounds could not be raised afresh in a writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed in the following terms:

"There is no merit in the present Petition, which is hereby dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. H.G.R. Khattar, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Gagan Vaswani, Advocate

Case Title: Kamal Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4087

Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 68/2017

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

[Read/Download order]