- (1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the Complaint No.186/2 dated 26.04.2000 under Sections 9, 9-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) At the time of issuance of notice of motion, following order was passed on 25.05.2010:- "The learned senior counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner Harjit Kaur had not been arrayed as an accused in the criminal complaint dated 26.04.2000 (P2) filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division No.-1 Dandi Swami, Ludhiana. It is further submitted that the allegations against the other accused has been mentioned in para 3 of the complaint (P2) and there is no allegation of any kind against the petitioner. The petitioner has been summoned as an accused vide order dated 5.12.2005 in which it is mentioned that counsel for the complainant states that Ajit Singh and Harjit Kaur (petitioner) are owners of the accused-company i.e. M/s Mohan Bottling Company. Therefore, the summoning order dated 5.12.2005 is without application of mind and without impleading the petitioner as accused. Even otherwise, it is submitted that in respect of the assessment order (P1), which was passed against M/s Mohan Bottling Company, an appeal was filed before the CEGAT, which was dismissed being barred by limitation. M/s Mohan Bottling Company then filed a writ petition in this Court and this Court vide order dated 24.02.2010 (P11) in view of the payment of 25% of the outstanding amount, directed the appeal to be heard by the CEGAT on merits. As such, it is submitted that till the appeal is finally disposed of, M/s Mohan Bottling Company cannot be said to have evaded any tax, which is the requirement for initiating proceedings in terms of Section 9(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Notice of motion for 23.8.2010. Meanwhile, further proceedings before the trial Court shall remain stayed."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 01.02.1999 (Annexure P-1) which formed the basis of the complaint has since been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 11.12.2012. Said order had become final.;