Allahabad High Court
Ramkrishna Jaladhar Parai And Another vs U.O.I. Thru. Addl. Director General ... on 6 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45727
Court No. - 11
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6310 of 2025
Applicant :- Ramkrishna Jaladhar Parai And Another
Opposite Party :- U.O.I. Thru. Addl. Director General Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Mohd. Akram Siddiqui
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Digvijay Nath Dubey
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed in the Court today is taken on record.
2. Heard SriAmrendra Nath Tripathi, learned Advocate, who appeared alongwith Sri Rajan Singh, Advocate & Sri Nikhil Agnihotri, Advocate, for the applicants and SriDigvijay Nath Dubey, learned Senior Standing counsel, who appeared alongwith Ms. Jaya Pandey, Advocate, for opposite party/D.R.I (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence).
3. The main prayer sought in the instant application is as under:-
"(1) Issue an order or directions for quashing of the impugned Complaint Case No. 39729 of 2024 (Union of India Vs. Shri Harekrishna Parai and others), dated 22.04.2024 (contained herein as Annexure No. 1) filed by Senior Intelligence Officer, under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, in DRI Case No. 6 of 2024, under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, Police Station - DRI, Zonal Unit, Lucknow, District -Lucknow and the impugned summoning order passed by the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Customs), Lucknow, dated 22.04.2024 (contained herein as Annexure No. 2) taking the cognizance and summoning the Applicants and also entire proceeding of the Complaint Case No. 39729 of 2024 (Union of India Vs. Shri Harekrishna Parai and others) currently pending before the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Customs), Lucknow."
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
(i) The officers concerned of Custom Department apprehended two accused namely Lalmohan Panja and Harekrishna Parai on 20.02.2024 at about 9.20 P.M. from the Second AC Coach bearing No. A1 of Pushpak Express (Train No. 12533) from the Charbagh Railway Station and their baggage was searched and from their three Trolley Bags, 558.900 Grams of gold of foreign origin valued at Rs. 3,29,25,000/- and cash in Indian currency worth Rs. 3.28 Crores was recovered.
(ii) It would be apt to indicate here that these accused were traveling to Mumbai, as per the case of prosecution, to deliver the gold and the currency recovered to its owners namelyRamkrishna Jaladhar Parai (applicant No. 2 herein) and his real brother namely Laxman ChandraJ Parai (applicant No. 2 herein).
(iii) Thereafter, follow up search was conducted on 21.02.2024 by the officers concerned of Custom Department.
(iv) In follow up search, premises of the applicants i.e. Flat No. 306, Third Floor, Kusumdeep Apartments, Chowk, Lucknow was searched and from this premises, 7,700 Grams of gold jewelry was recovered, which was valued at Rs. 3,69,60,000/-
(v) In the inquiry, premises of one Sumit Kumar Rastogi was also searched on 21.02.2024, from where, a locker was recovered.
(vi) The key of locker recovered from the premises of Sumit Kumar Rastogi was in possession of the two accused, named above, who were apprehended at Charbagh Railway Station, and by the said key provided to the officers of Custom Department, the locker was opened and from this locker, 20,500 grams of gold jewelry was recovered, which was valued at Rs. 12,42,62,400/-.
(vii) It would also be apt to indicate here that Lalmohan Panja, Harikrishana Parai and Sumit Kumar Rastogi were taken into custody and sent to jail.
(viii) It would also be relevant to indicate here that Anticipatory Bail Application of the applicants i.e. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 2175 of 2024 and 2177 of 2024, respectively, were rejected by the trial court on 28.03.2024.
(ix) Thereafter, the applicants filedCRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 791 of 2024 (Ramkrishna Jaladhar Parai vs. Union of India) andCRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 793 of 2024 (Laxman Chandra J Parai vs. Union of India) before this Court, which were also rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2024.
(x) In the aforesaid anticipatory bail applications, as appears from the record, the applicants have averred that locker found in Flat No. 306, Third Floor, Kusumdeep Apartments, Chowk, Lucknow belongs to M/s Vishka Ornaments, Karol Bagh, Delhi owned by Shri Vishwanath Mandal and taking note of the said averments, D.R.I. proceeded in the matter. The relevant averments in this regard, referred, has been made in paragraphs 11 to 13 of the instant application, which are extracted hereunder:-
"11. That, thereafter Applicants have filed Anticipatory Bail Application before this Hon'ble Court on 05.04.2024 (notices of which were given to the Standing Counsel of DRI on 01.04.2024) vide Anticipatory Bail Application No. 791 of 2024 (Ramkrishna Jaladhar Parai Vs. Union of India) and Anticipatory Bail Application No. 793 of 2024 (Laxman Chandra J Parai Vs. Union of India), Applicants in their affidavit filed in support of Anticipatory Bail Applications had declared that jewelries (7,700 grams of gold jewelry is recovered and valued at Rs.3,69,60,000/-) which were found at Flat No. 306, Third Floor, Kusumdeep Apartments, Chowk Lucknow belongs to M/s Vishka Ornaments, Karol Bagh, Delhi owned by Shri Vishwanath Mandal. Para 23 of the affidavit filed in support of Anticipatory Bail Application No. 791 of 2024 (Ramkrishna Jaladhar Parai Vs. Union of India) is as under: -
23. That in the recovery memo, the total weight of jewelries and gold pieces is 34,758.90 Gms. (34 Kgs and 758.90 Gms.) and out of the said weight, 7700 gms (7 kgs and 700 gms) is to be claimed by M/s Vishka Ornaments, Karol Bagh, Delhi owned by Shri Vishwanath Mandal which has been found from different locker found in the said premises. The said locker was unlocked with the help of some key-expert who had to break the lock of the locker for seizure of the jewelries by DRI on fateful day. Be the things as may be, the applicant and co-accused Laxman Chandra J Parai as well as their firms namely M/s Ram Laxman & Co. and M/s R.L. Jewels are not claiming the aforesaid 7700 gms. (7 Kgs and 700 gms).
12. That, it is relevant to mention here that Shri Vishwanath Mandal proprietor of M/s Vishka Ornaments, Karol Bagh, Delhi is also using office of the Applicants situated at Flat No. 306, Third Floor, Kusumdeep Apartments, Chowk Lucknow and their two staffs namely Shri Gautam Mandal and Shri Bijay Karak are also continuously staying in the same flat.
13. That, officials of DRI took the cognizance on declaration made by the Applicants in their affidavit filed in support of Anticipatory Bail Applications regarding jewelries (7,700 grams of gold jewelry is recovered and valued at Rs.3,69,60,000/-) which were found at Flat No. 306, Third Floor, Kusumdeep Apartments, Chowk Lucknow belongs to M/s Vishka Ornaments, Karol Bagh, Delhi owned by Shri Vishwanath Mandal, and officials of DRI issued summons dated 06.04.2024 to Shri Vishwanath Mandal for appearance on 08.04.2024 and also made visit note dated 06.04.2024 by the officials of DRI. Copies of the summons dated 06.04.2024 and copy of the visit note dated 06.04.2024 are annexed as Annexure No. 4 and 5."
(xi) The officer concerned namely Renuka K Paunikar, Senior Intelligence Officer filed a Complaint Case on 22.04.2024 registered as DRI Case No. 06 of 2024 before the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Lucknow (in short "Magistrate").
(xii) From the above quoted paragraphs and also paragraph 24 of the instant application, which is also extracted hereunder, it is apparent that the applicants were not apprehended during inquiry and they surrendered before the trial court and were sent to judicial custody on 29.06.2024. Thus, for this reason, the statement(s) of the applicants were not recorded by the officer(s) concerned of Custom Department in terms of Section 108 of the Indian Customs Act, 1962 (in short "Act of 1962").
"That, in the meantime the Applicants had surrendered before the trial court and were sent to judicial custody on 29.06.2024. The DRI had moved an application dated 10.07.2024 before the learned trial court, seeking permission to record statement of the Applicants in Lucknow jail, which was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 15.07.2024, and accordingly the statement of both the applicants were recorded on 16.07.2024 under section 108 of the Act, wherein the Applicants had admitted that 27058.90 gms of gold jointly belongs to the Applicants and specifically stated that the recovered gold 7700 gms (recovered from broken Godrej Locker at Flat No. 306, Third Floor, Kusumdeep Apartments, Chowk Lucknow) do not belong to the Applicants and which actually belongs to M/s Vishka Ornaments, Karol Bagh, Delhi owned by Shri Vishwanath Mandal. Typed copy of the order of trial Court dated 15.07.2024 and copies of the statements of the Applicants recorded under section 108 of the Act dated 16.07.2024 are annexed as Annexure No. 10 & 11, respectively."
(xiii) The aforesaid complaint case was filed impleading the accused who were apprehended during investigation and also the present applicants, who subsequently surrendered before the court on 29.06.2024 and sent to judicial custody, as well as one Shri Avijit Manna.
(xiv) During pendency of the complaint case, the prosecution preferred an application dated 10.07.2024 seeking permission regarding recording the statements of the present applicants, who surrendered before the court concerned and sent to judicial custody on 29.06.2024.
(xv) It would be apt to indicate here that the statements of the applicants could not be recorded earlier because they were not apprehended.
(xvi) The application dated 10.07.2024 for recording the statements of the applicants was preferred by the prosecution, which was allowed by the order dated 15.07.2024, a copy of which is annexed Annexure No. 10 to the instant application (at page No. 151-152 of the paper book).
(xvii) In terms of the order dated 15.07.2024, the statements of present applicants were recorded on 16.07.2024, as is evident from Annexure No. 11 to the instant application (at page No. 153-163 of the paper book).
(xviii) Subsequent to above, the prosecution again moved an application dated 22.07.2024 and a perusal of this application annexed as Annexure No. 12 of the instant application (at page No. 167 to 170 of the paper book) would indicate that the same was preferred under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. (now repealed)/Section 193(9) B.N.S.S. The relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder:-
"1. This office submitted application dt. 10/07/2024 before Ld. Special CJM Court and requested to issue orders for recording of statement of Ramkrishna Parai and Laxman Chandra Parai in District Jail, Lucknow as they were sent to district jail Lucknow under Judicial custody after they surrendered before Ld. Court on 29/06/2024 in DRI case no. 06/2024, dt. 21/02/2024. Ld. Court vide its order dated 15/07/2024 allowed officers of this office to record statement of Ramkrishna Parai and Laxman Chandra Parai in district jail, Lucknow on 16/07/2024.
2. In compliance of Ld. Court's order, statement of Ramkrishna Parai and Laxman Chandra Parai, who are in judicial custody in District Jail, Lucknow, were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act before Senior Intelligence Officer on 16/07/2024.
3. Some Inputs/leads obtained from the statements of both the accused which requires further investigation in the instant case.
4. Also, in paragraph 66 of the complaint petition filed before Ld. Court dt. 22/04/2024, it is mentioned that if new facts and evidences would so warrant, Supplementary complaint shall be filed.
5. Hence, it is humbly submitted that now new evidence in the form of statements of Ramkrishna Parai and Laxman Chandra Parai have emerged. Hence, it is just and necessary to re-open and further investigate the above case U/s.,173(8) Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice.".
6. Therefore, it is humbly prayed to reopen the instant case and allow this office to further investigate in the interest of justice. After completion of further investigation, this office shall file supplementary complaint in the instant case."
(xix) In the above quoted portion of the application dated 22.07.2024 preferredunder Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. (now repealed)/Section 193(9) B.N.S.S., reference has been made to paragraph 66 of the complaint dated 22.04.2024, which to the view of this Court is also relevant, and accordingly the same is extracted hereunder:-
"66. That the inquiry in the subject case will remain open against any person(s) against whose involvement in the instant case is noticed and evidences are unearthed, their role examined and suitable actions, as provided in the Customs Act, 1962 & Allied Acts, will be initiated as per the provisions of law. If new facts and evidences would so warrant, Supplementary Complaint shall be filed."
(xx) The aforesaid application dated 22.07.2024 was disposed of vide order dated 30.07.2024 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, which reads as under:-
"??????:-30.07.2024
????????? ?? ?? ?? ????????????? ???????? ????-173 (8) ???? ????????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ????
???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ????
???????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ????????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???????????? ?? ???????-66 ??? ????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ? ?????????? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ????? ????????? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ?????????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ???????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?????????? ???????? ??? ????????? ????????????? ??????????"
(xxi) It would also be relevant to indicate here that the order dated 15.07.2024 and the order dated 30.07.2024 have not been challenged by means of the instant application.
5. In the aforesaid background of the case, the instant application has been filed for quashing of the complaint case dated22.04.2024on the following ground(s), as indicated by Sri Tripathi, who appeared for the applicants.
(i) The complaint dated22.04.2024ought not have been entertained in view of the fact that the statement(s) as required under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were not recorded.
(ii) The Magistrate was not empowered to pass the order dated 15.07.2024, which relates to recording of statement(s), and also the order dated 30.07.2024, which relates to permitting the prosecution to conduct further investigation.
(iii) Paragraph 66 of the complaint filed on 22.04.2024 indicates that inquiry/investigation has not been concluded and as such, the complaint ought not to have been entertained.
6. The ground No. (i) related to recording of statement(s) in terms of Section(s) 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. is not sustainable in the eye of law in view of proviso (a) to Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also the judgment(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Mehta vs. State of West Bengal, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 62 and Cheminova India Limited vs. State of Punjab, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 573.
7. The ground No. (ii) based upon the order dated 15.07.2024 and the order dated 30.07.2024 for quashing the entire complaint case has also no force. It is for the reason(s) that (i)the order(s) passed in this regard have not been challenged; (ii) to the view of this Court, these orders would not affect the final conclusion in the case, as the same would be on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties before the court concerned and (iii) if it is taken that in passing the orders indicated hereinabove, the court committed illegality even then on this ground, the complaint case cannot be quashed.
8. As regards ground No. (iii), it is to be noted that the said paragraph says that 'inquiry in subject case shall remain open against any person(s) against whose involvement in the instant case is noticed and evidences are unearthed'. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the argument based upon paragraph 66 does not support the applicants.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the instant application. It is accordingly dismissed. Cost made easy.
Order Date :- 6.8.2025
Arun/-
