Akhil Krishan Maggu vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.

2023

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the direction be issued to the respondents to grant a personal hearing in respect of his grievance (No. CBOEC/E/2019/04640 dated 28.08.2019) in accordance with the complaint handling policy of the respondents. The petitioner has alleged mala fides on the part of certain officers who had initiated proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner states that he is a practicing advocate and he and his family are being victimized by the officers of the DRI as he had appeared for certain assessees. He also alleges that during the search This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/06/2026 at 22:29:43

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the petitioner’s complaint has been closed because it is not possible to afford all complainants an opportunity to be heard by the Grievance Cell.

It is noticed that the petitioner had filed the petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court CWP No. 24195/2019 and the Hon’ble High Court, prima facie, found merit in the certain grievances of the petitioner. Paragraph nos. 11 and 12 of the said order are relevant and reads as under:-

In the case in hand, we find that Petitioner No.2 was interrogated on 11.9.2019 & 12.9.2019 by DGGI and thereafter handed over to DRI, who arrested him. There is nothing on record showing admission by Petitioner No.2 and no further statement has been recorded in jail though he is in judicial custody since 13.9.2019. Petitioner No.1 has already put appearance on various occasions and there is nothing in file to show which indicates that Petitioner No.1 was connected with alleged illegal refund sought by Exporters. Concededly, the Petitioner No.1 is neither proprietor nor partner nor shareholder of any Exporter Concern/Firm/Company, who availed refund of IGST. There is no evidence of transfer of funds in accounts of Petitioners or withdrawal of cash by one of them. The Petitioner No.1 is in legal profession since 2017 and after introduction of GST had had not dealt with directly or indirectly export consignments. The Respondent has produced copy of an order dated 1.10.2019 (date of hearing 22.5.2019) passed by Tribunal wherein Petitioner No.1 has represented Appellants as an Advocate which buttress the argument of Petitioner that he in practice and appeared as an Advocate on behalf of four exporters who availed alleged illegal This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/06/2026 at 22:29:43

We find that it is case of some misunderstanding between Petitioners and officers of Respondent/DGGI who now want to implicate Petitioner and his family members. The investigation is going on for last couple of months and Respondents are unable to produce any evidence showing direct involvement of Petitioners. The Respondent did not record statement while both the Petitioners were in judicial custody for a week in FIR dated 15.08.2019 lodged at the instance of DGGI, and till date no statement of Petitioner No.2 has been recorded though he is in judicial custody since 13.9.2019. The Respondent-DGGI handed over Petitioner No.2 to DRI after recording his statement and there is nothing on record to show that he made any confession. The Respondents are recording one after another statement of Petitioner No.1 (Akhil Krishan Maggu) with perhaps to intimidate him in giving a self incriminating confession. They have not been able to arrest him because of the oral assurance given before this Court, and have not handed him over to DRI for arrest because he is not required by DRI in any case. Intention of Respondents seems only to arrest Petitioner No.1, one way or the other, which is evident from the fact that Petitioner No.2 was handed over to DRI without concluding investigation at least qua petitioner no.2 and there is nothing contained in different affidavits of Respondent, filed before this Court, indicating that involvement of Petitioner No.2 is apparent from his statements.”

It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the respondents have preferred a Special Leave Petition against the aforesaid order dated 15.11.2019, passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court. A perusal of the SLP indicates that the respondents have not raised any specific ground as to the observations made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court as noted above. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/06/2026 at 22:29:43

However, the petitioner states that since the SLP has been filed before the Supreme Court and the notice has been issued, he would seek withdrawal of the present petition with the liberty to file afresh after conclusion of the said proceedings.

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

It is also clarified that the petitioner would not be precluded from availing such other remedies as available in law.