Customs Act Is A Complete Code, IPC Cannot Be Invoked For Non-Appearance Under Section 108: Delhi High Court Quashes Criminal Complaint

“Special Law Prevails Over General Law; IPC Cannot Override Specific Customs Act Penalties”, In a significant judgment reaffirming the primacy of special legislation over general penal provisions, the Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against businessman Manish Kumar Jain for alleged non-compliance with summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna ruled that invoking Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for non-compliance of summons under the Customs Act was legally impermissible, terming the prosecution an “abuse of process of law.”

The Court noted, “Where the special law provides for a penalty, the general provisions of IPC cannot be resorted to for punishing the same conduct. The Customs Act, being a complete code, mandates action under its own provisions, not the IPC.”

The case stemmed from the petitioner, Manish Kumar Jain, a partner in M/s Mala Petrochemicals & Polymers, being subjected to investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) following a wrongful consignment and alleged under-valuation of imports. Summons were issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, and Jain appeared on multiple occasions, gave statements, and even deposited Rs. 3 crores during the investigation. However, upon missing a single summons dated 15 September 2017, a criminal complaint was filed against him under Section 174 IPC, followed by the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs).

Jain approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the complaint and NBWs on the ground that the Customs Act is a self-contained statute, providing specific remedies and penalties under Section 117 for non-compliance of summons, making recourse to IPC untenable.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether a complaint under Section 174 IPC could be sustained in light of the special mechanism provided under the Customs Act.

The Court extensively examined Sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) which mandate that special laws prevail over general criminal law in matters where the special legislation covers both the procedure and the punishment. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed:

“A bare reading of Sections 4 and 5 Cr.P.C. makes it amply clear that where a special statute comprehensively provides for offences, investigations, and penalties, such a law overrides the general penal provisions of the IPC.”

Relying on precedents such as Rakesh Kumar Goyal v. NCT of Delhi and Delta Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, the Court held:

“The Customs Act is a complete code providing specific remedies for non-compliance of its provisions under Section 117. Therefore, for non-compliance of summons under Section 108, penal action, if any, must be under the Customs Act alone.”

Mechanical Filing of Multiple Complaints Condemned

Justice Krishna also condemned the repetitive filing of complaints by DRI under Section 174 IPC for each instance of non-compliance despite the petitioner’s overall cooperation with the investigation:

“Issuance of multiple complaints under IPC on the same cause of action reflects an abuse of process of law. The petitioner had appeared multiple times, deposited substantial amounts, and his non-appearance on one occasion, especially during pendency of anticipatory bail, cannot be construed as intentional disobedience warranting penal action under IPC.”

The Court further highlighted the serious consequence of personal liberty infringement through the issuance of NBWs based on such complaints:

“NBWs are coercive measures, and their mechanical issuance, especially where personal liberty is involved, is impermissible. The invocation of criminal machinery under IPC in this manner leads to arbitrary deprivation of liberty and must be curbed.”

IPC Prosecution Quashed, Customs Act Remedies Preserved

While quashing the criminal complaint and NBWs, the Court clarified: “This quashing does not impede the rights of customs authorities to proceed under the Customs Act, including imposition of penalties under Section 117 or initiation of proceedings under Section 124, in accordance with law.”

The High Court concluded that the complaint under IPC was entirely unsustainable, noting:

“This case represents a classic instance of misuse of criminal law where a statutory body, in disregard of the scheme of a special statute, chooses to invoke general penal law to arm-twist the petitioner.”

The Court allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashed the Complaint No. 6903/2018 (earlier 26460/2017), and set aside the summoning order dated 20.11.2017 and the NBWs dated 22.01.2018. However, it preserved the authority of customs officials to proceed under the Customs Act.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna concluded: “In the facts of the case, continuing proceedings under IPC would amount to grave injustice and would be an abuse of judicial process. The ends of justice warrant quashing of these proceedings.”

This ruling reinforces the legal principle that where a special law comprehensively provides for penalties, recourse to general provisions of the IPC is impermissible. The judgment acts as a reminder to investigating agencies to operate within the confines of statutory frameworks and avoid the misuse of coercive criminal proceedings, particularly where personal liberty is at stake.

Date of Decision: 14 July 2025