M/S. Rainbow Childrens Medicare ... vs The State Of Telangana on 17 January, 2022

[Cites 33, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

M/S. Rainbow Childrens Medicare ... vs The State Of Telangana on 17 January, 2022

Bench: K.Lakshman

                THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

                 CRIMINAL PETITION No.7729 OF 2019
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.2 of 2015 pending on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, against the petitioners herein. The petitioners are accused in the above said Sessions Case. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are under Sections 18(a) (vi) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ( for short, ' the Act') read with Rules 65(4)(4)(i), Rule 65(4)(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 ( for short, 'the Rules' ), Sections 18(B) and 22(1)(cca), Section 22(1) of the Act, under Schedule-K read with Rules 1 and 3 of the Rules and Rule 123 of the Rules, punishable under Section 27 ( d), 28(A) and 22(3) of the Act.

2. Heard Sri D.V.Sita Rama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. T.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Khaja Vizarath Ali, learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

3. FACTS OF THE CASE:-

a. The 1st petitioner is a company by name "M/s Rainbow Children's Medicare Private Limited' (for short, 'the company') and 2nd petitioner is its Managing Director. 2 The 3rd petitioner is a registered Pharmacist with registered Pharmacist Certificate No.24550 and he is an employee of 1st petitioner company and 4th petitioner is a consultant Anesthesiologist in 1st petitioner company. b. 1st petitioner is having retail and wholesale licenses in Form Nos.20, 20-B, 21, 21-B valid upto 06.08.2015. c. On 27.06.2013, the Drug Inspector, Secunderabad (Manufacturing) and other Drug Control Officials inspected the medical shop of the 1st petitioner company and found 25 ampoules of Morphitroy manufactured by M/s Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Limited, Gujarat, stocked in the open rack along with other salable drugs in the right side corner of the sales premises for sale. The formula of the injection in each ampoule contains Morphine injection I.P.15mg.

d. At the time of inspection, 2nd petitioner/A.2 failed to submit the purchase and sale bills for the above mentioned drugs.

e. Basing on the inspection report, the Assistant Director (Twin cities-1) issued show cause notice dated 03.09.2013 to furnish purchase and sale particulars of the said batch drug.

f. On 10.03.2019, the 3rd petitioner/A.3 had submitted his explanation enclosing one purchase bill of the said batch drug. On verification of the said purchase bill, it was found that the bill was issued M/s L.G.Enterprizes, Hyderabad in the name of the 4th petitioner/A.4, bearing invoice Nos.HO2127, dated 06.06.2013 for a quantity of 50 ampoules of Morphitroy 15mg, batch No.M38135 and also submitted manual cash receipts of A.1 from Sl.No.751 dated 06.06.2013 to Sl.No.766, dated 27.06.2013 of Rumorf 15 mg.

g. On 15.09.2013, 4th petitioner/A.4 gave reason for storing the said drug in the said sales premises stating that she did not have locker facility in their hospital and therefore, the said drug was kept in the pharmacy locker for safety purpose and were used from there for necessity.

h. On 16.09.2013, L.Ws.1 and 8 Drug Inspectors inspected the premises of the said M/s L.G. Enterprises and verified the purchase and sale particulars of Morphitroy 15mg with the above said batch particulars etc. and found that the said M/s L.G.Enterprises supplied a quantity of 50 ampoules to the 4th petitioner/A.4 vide invoice No.HO2127, dated 06.06.2013 and obtained 4 certified copies of the said sale bill. As the said firm M/s L.G. Enterprises had not supplied the subject batch drug to the 1st petitioner/A.1, L.W.1, on 30.09.2013 seized the 25 ampoules of said drug under the cover of panchanama in the presence of Mediators as the licensee failed to produce the purchase and sale details of seized drug. On the same day, a notice was issued under Section 18-B and 22(1)(cca) of the Act to the 3rd petitioner/A.3 with a request to furnish the purchase and sale details of 25 ampoules of the above said drug. i. On 18.11.2013 a notice was issued to the 1st petitioner/A.1 u/sec.18(B), 22(1) (cca) of the Act to furnish information of sales and purchase of the drug in Form-16.

j. 1st petitioner/A.1 had submitted explanation dated 26.11.2013 stating that they have procured the said drug from 4th petitioner/A.4 who had procured 50 ampoules of said drug from L.G.Enterprises and sold 25 ampoules to the A.1 through sale bills submitted on 10.09.2013. They have further confirmed that their cash department noted the name of injection as injection Rumorf instead of Morphitroy by mistake inadvertently in the sale bills of the said drug and the earlier stock 5 they procured was injection Rumorf which was sold out by the date 06.09.2012 and in proof of the said statement the A.1 enclosed the NDPS stock register of Rumorf injection maintained from 13.07.2012 to 06.09.2012.

k. On 02.12.2013, a notice was issued to 4th petitioner/A.4 under Section 18(6) of the Act read with Rules123 of the Rules and Schedule-K of the Act, to produce the supply record of the said drug which was procured on 06.06.2013 from M/s L.G.Enterprises by her.

l. On 04.12.2013, the 4th petitioner/A.4 had submitted reply stating that she purchased the said drug from M/s L.G. Enterprises, a quantity of 50 ampoules through invoice No.HO2127 on 06.06.2013 and enclosed a copy of the extract from the Register.

m. On verification of the replies submitted by the petitioners, it was evident that the 4th petitioner/A.4 procured 50 ampoules of the said drug, kept the said stock in the premises of the 1st petitioner/A.1, and A.1 A.2 and A.3 sold 25 ampoules of the said drug through manual cash receipts from Sl.No.751 dated 06.06.2013 to Sl.No.766, dated 27.06.2013.

n. As per the exemption given under Schedule-K read with Rule 123 of the Rules, 4th petitioner/A.4, a Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP) shall supply the drug procured under Schedule-K exemption to her own patients only and should not supply to a retail and wholesale licensee for sale. Therefore, 4th petitioner/A.4 violated the exemption given under Schedule 'K' to a Registered Medical Practitioner which is a violation under Section 18(a)(vi) punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act.

o. Thus, 1st petitioner/A.1 procured the said drug without purchase bill and sold the drug through manual cash receipts and thereby violated Rule 65(4)(4)(1) of the Rules which is a violation under Section 18(a)(vi) punishable under Section 27( d ) of the Act.

p. The drug seized by L.W.1 from the 1st petitioner/A.1 is a potent and habit forming drug. Therefore, the petitioners are alleged to have committed the above said offences.

4. CONTENTIONS OF THE SRI D.V.SITA RAMA MURTHY, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING MS.T.JAYANTHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIOENRS:

a. The bills are in the name of A.1 and the said drug is exempted from Chapter-4. Therefore, the petitioners have not committed any offence.

b. The contents of the complaint lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. c. There are no primary ingredients of the Act construed under Sections 18-(A) (B) of the Act read with Rules 65(4)(4)(i), Rule 65(4)(3) of the Rules in the complaint against the petitioners.

d. Section 18 of the Act prohibits manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell or stock or exhibit or offer for sale of any drug in contravention of the provisions of the Act or any Rule made thereunder.

e. In the present case, the petitioners neither manufactured or intended to distribute or sold nor stocked any drug contravening any provisions of the Act and Rules made therein.

f. The 4th petitioner purchased the said drug for her patients and not meant for sale for the outside patients. The purchase order is duly signed by 4th petitioner. g. The manual cash receipt was issued in the name of 1st petitioner/A.1, which cannot construe the sale bill of the Pharmacy of 1st petitioner/A.1. The said drug was 8 purchased by 4th petitioner who is being a Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP) permitted under the Act to purchase the said drug. The 4th petitioner being RMP, does not need drug licence for exclusive usage of the drug for her patient at the hospital of the 1st petitioner. h. Since the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 never purchased the said drug, there is no contravention of Section 18 (B) of the Act.

i. Referring to the inspection report dated 27.06.2013, purchase and sales details of the said drug, tax invoice dated 06.06.2013 issued by M/s. LG Enterprises and manual cash receipts, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioners herein never committed any offences as alleged against them.

j. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Mohd. Shabbir Vs. State of Maharashtra1, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Pushpinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab2, the Delhi High Court in Purnanand Vs. State of Delhi3.

k. He would further submit that as per Section 36(A) and Section 36(AB) of the Act, the offences alleged against 1 AIR 1979 SC 564 2 1983(1) RCR (Crl) 331 3 1985 Law Suit (Del) 397 9 the petitioners have to be tried summarily by a Magistrate but not by Sessions Judge. Placing reliance on the order dated 30.12.2013 passed by the Assistant Director (Twin cities-1), in-charge Drugs Control Administration, would submit that the licence of 1st petitioner was suspended for two days and therefore continuation of the present proceedings amounts to double jeopardy.

l. With the said submissions, he sought to quash the present proceedings.

5. CONTENTIONS OF SRI KHAJA VIZARATH ALI, THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:

a. There are specific allegations against all the petitioners herein.

b. The 4th petitioner has to use drug for her own patients, whereas, she has violated the same by keeping the said drug with the 3rd petitioner.

c. The details of the drug, invoice particulars, inspection report and other details are specifically mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, there are several triable issues. d. The petitioners have to face trial and prove their innocence during the course of trial before the Court 10 below. Instead of doing so, they have filed the present petition.

e. With the said contentions learned Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the present petition.

FINDING OF THE COURT:-

6. In view of the said rival submissions, it is relevant to discuss certain provisions of the Act and Rules to decide whether the petitioners have committed any violations as alleged against them, which are extracted below:-

Section 22(3) of the Act:- If any person willfully obstructs an Inspector in the exercise of the powers conferred upon him by or under this Chapter, 2 or refuses to produce any record, register or other document when so required under clause (cca) of sub- section (1), he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 3(aaa) of the Act:-

cosmetic means any article intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled or sprayed on, or introduced into, or otherwise applied to, the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance, and includes any article intended for use as a component of cosmetic. Section 3(b) of the Act deals with the drug which is extracted below:-

(b) drug includes:-

[(i) all medicines for internal or external use of human beings or animals and all substances intended to be used for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of any disease or disorder in human beings or animals, including preparations applied on human body for the purpose of repelling insects like mosquitoes;]

(ii) such substances (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the human body or intended to be used for the destruction of [vermin] or insects which cause disease in human beings or animals, as may be specified from time to time by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette;] 11

(iii) all substances intended for use as components of a drug including empty gelatin capsules; and

(iv) such devices intended for internal or external use in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease or disorder in human beings or animals, as may be specified from time to time by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, after consultation with the Board;] Rule 65(4)(4)(i) of the Rules:-

Records of purchase of a drug intended for sale or sold by retail shall be maintained by the licensee and such records shall show the following particulars, namely:

(a) the date of purchase,

(b) the name and address of the person from whom purchased and the number of the relevant licence held by him,

(c) the name of the drug, the quantity and the batch number, and

(d) the name of the manufacturer of the drug.

65(4)(3) of the Rules:-

(i) The supply by retail of any drug shall be made against a cash/credit memo which shall contain the following particulars :

(a) Name, address and sale licence number of the dealer, [(b) Serial number of the cash/credit memo,

(c) the name and quantity of the drug supplied.

(ii) Carbon copies of cash/credit memos shall be maintained by the licensee as record.

Rule 123 of the Rules:-The drugs specified in Schedule K shall be exempted from the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act and the Rules made thereunder to the extent and subject to the conditions specified in that Schedule.

Section-18A:- Disclosure of the name of the manufacturer, etc.-- Every person, not being the manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall, if so required, disclose to the Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he acquired the drug or cosmetic.

Section-18B:- Maintenance of records and furnishing of information.--Every person holding a licence under clause (c) of section 18 shall keep and maintain such records, registers and other documents as may be prescribed and shall furnish to any officer or authority exercising any power or discharging any function under this Act such information as is required by such officer or authority for carrying out the purposes of this Act.

22. Powers of Inspectors.--(1) Subject to the provisions of section 23 and of any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, an Inspector may, within the local limits of the area for which he is appointed,

(a) inspect,--

(i) any premises wherein any drug or cosmetic is being manufactured and the means employed for standardising and testing the drug or cosmetic;

(ii) any premises wherein any drug or cosmetic is being sold, or stocked or exhibited or offered for sale, or distributed;

(b) take samples of any drug or cosmetic,--

(i) which is being manufactured or being sold or is stocked or exhibited or offered for sale, or is being distributed;

(ii) from any person who is in the course of conveying, delivering or preparing to deliver such drug or cosmetic to a purchaser or a consignee;

(i) search any person, who, he has reason to believe, has secreted about his person, any drug or cosmetic in respect of which an offence under this Chapter has been, or is being, committed; or

(ii) enter and search any place in which he has reason to believe that an offence under this Chapter has been, or is being, committed; or

(iii) stop and search any vehicle, vessel or other conveyance which, he has reason to believe, is being used for carrying any drug or cosmetic in respect of which an offence under this Chapter has been, or is being, committed, and order in writing the person in possession of the drug or cosmetic in respect of which the offence has been, or is 13 being, committed, not to dispose of any stock of such drug or cosmetic for a specified period not exceeding twenty days, or, unless the alleged offence is such that the defect may be removed by the possessor of the drug or cosmetic, seize the stock of such drug or cosmetic and any substance or article by means of which the offence has been, or is being, committed or which may be employed for the commission of such offence;] (cc) examine any record, register, document or any other material object found 4 [with any person, or in any place, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance referred to in clause (c)], and seize the same if he has reason to believe that it may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under this Act or the rules made thereunder; (cca) require any person to produce any record, register, or other document relating to the manufacture for sale or for distribution, stocking, exhibition for sale, offer for sale or distribution of any drug or cosmetic in respect of which he has reason to believe that an offence under this Chapter has been, or is being, committed;

(d) exercise such other powers as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Chapter or any rules made thereunder. (2) The provisions of 1 [the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)] shall, so far as may be, apply to any search or seizure under this Chapter as they apply to any search or seizure made under the authority of a warrant issued under 1 [section 94] of the said Code. (2A) Every record, register or other document seized under clause (cc) or produced under clause (cca) shall be returned to the person, from whom they were seized or who produce the same, within a period of twenty days of the date of such seizure or production, as the case may be, after copies thereof or extracts therefrom certified by that person, in such manner as may be prescribed, have been taken. (3) If any person wilfully obstructs an Inspector in the exercise of the powers conferred upon him by or under this Chapter, 2 [or refuses to produce any record, register or other document when so required under clause (cca) of sub- section (1),] he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 27 (c):- any drug deemed to be spurious under section 17B, but not being a drug referred to in clause (a) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and with fine which shall 14 not be three lakh rupees or three times the value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more:

Section 27(d):- any drug, other than a drug referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), in contravention of any other provision of this Chapter or any rule made thereunder, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to two years 9[and with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees]:

Section 28:-Penalty for non-disclosure of the name of the manufacturer, etc: Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 18A 2 or section 24 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or 3 with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees or with both.

28A. Penalty for not keeping documents, etc., and for non-disclosure of information.--Whoever without reasonable cause or excuse, contravenes the provisions of section 18B shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or 12 with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees or with both.

28B. Penalty for manufacture, etc., of drugs or cosmetics in contravention of section 26A.--Whoever himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures or sells or distributes any drug or cosmetic in contravention of the provisions of any notification issued under section 26A, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.

7. The above stated facts and also contents of the complaint would reveal that the inspection of 1st petitioner's medical shop was conducted on 27.06.2013. A show cause notice dated 03.09.2013 was issued to the 1st petitioner/A.1 with a request to furnish the sale particulars of the said batch of drug. 3rd petitioner/A.3 had submitted explanation on 10.09.2013 by duly enclosing one purchase bill of the said drug. On 15.09.2013, 4th petitioner/A.4 had 15 also submitted explanation on 16.09.2013, L.W.1 and L.W.8 have inspected the premises of M/s L.G. Enterprises on 30.09.2013.

L.W.1 had seized 25 ampoules of Morphitroy 15 and on the same day, a notice was issued under Section 18(B), 22(1)(cca) to 3rd petitioner/A.3 with a request to furnish purchase and sale details of the 25 ampoules. On 18.11.2013, a notice was issued to the 1st petitioner herein with a request to furnish information of the sales and purchase of the drugs mentioned in Form-16. 1st petitioner had submitted reply dated 26.11.2013. On 02.12.2013, a notice was issued to 4th petitioner to produce the supply record of the said drug and accordingly she had submitted explanation on 04.12.2013. In the complaint, there is specific mention about all the said replies submitted by the A.1 to A.4.

8. There is specific allegation that the 4th petitioner/A.4 procured 50 ampoules of the drug i.e. Morphitroy 15, batch No.M38125, expiry date: February, 2015, manufactured by M/s Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Limited on 06.06.2013 from M/s L.G. Enterprises and sold 25 ampoules of the said drug to A.1 to A.3 through, manual cash receipts from Sl.No.761 dated 06.06.2013 to Sl.No.766 dated 27.06.2013. There is also specific allegation that as per exemption given under Schedule-K read with Rule 123 of the Rules, 4th petitioner/A.4, an RMP shall supply the said drug to her patients only but should not supply to a retailer or wholesale licensee 16 for sale. Thus, according to the complainant, 4th petitioner/A.4, a RMP, has violated the said conditions of exemption given under Schedule-K and sold the drug which is violation under Section 18(a)(vi) of the Act which is punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act. There is also a specific allegation that A.1 procured the said drug without purchase bill and sold it through the manual receipts stated supra and therefore, violated the Rule 65(4) (4) (1) of the Rules and is violation under Section 18(4) (vi) punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act. According to the 4th petitioner, since she is not having locker, she kept the same in the room of the Pharmacy of the 3rd petitioner/A.3. She has also stated the same in her explanation. Therefore, whether 4th petitioner is having locker or not and whether she kept the said in the room in the pharmacy are triable issues. The 4th petitioner has to face trial and prove her innocence. The said facts cannot be considered in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. All the defences raised here are to be taken by the petitioners during the trial in the Sessions Case.

9. It is relevant to note that under Rule 65 (4) (4) (1) of the Rules clearly says that the records of purchase of drug intended for sale or sold by a retail maintained by the licensee and such records shall show certain particulars mentioned thereunder. Section 65(4)(3) of the Act clearly shows that the supply by retail of any drug shall be 17 made against a cash or credit memo shall contain certain things mentioned thereunder.

10. Therefore, according to this Court, prima facie, there are specific allegations against all the petitioners/accused herein. They are all triable issues. The petitioners have to face trial and prove their innocence during the course of trial before the Court below. Thus, the petitioners herein fails to make out any case to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.2 of 2015.

11. With regard to the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that as per the Section 36 of the Act, the present offences are to be tried by a Magistrate summarily, Section 36(A) and 36(AB) of the Act needs to be reproduced herein for more clarity.

Section 36-A. Certain offences to be tried summarily.

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), all offences (except the offences triable by the Special Court under section 36AB or Court of Session under this Act] punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, other than an offence under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 33-I, shall be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trial.

Section 36AB. Special Courts:

(1) The Central Government, or the State Government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, shall, for trial of offences relating to adulterated drugs or spurious drugs and punishable under clauses (a) and (b) of section 13, sub-section (3) of section 22, clauses (a) and (c) of section 27, section 28, section 28A, section 28B and clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 30 and other offences relating to adulterated drugs or spurious drugs, by notification, designate one or more Courts of Session as a Special Court or Special Courts for such area or areas or for such case or class or group of cases as may be specified in the notification. 18

12. In the present case, the offences alleged against the petitioners herein are under Sections 18(a) (vi) of the Act read with Rules 65(4)(4)(i), Rule 65(4)(3) of the Rules, Sections 18(B) and 22(1)(cca), Section 22(1) of the Act, under Schedule-K read with Rules 1 and 3 of the Rules and Rule 123 of the Rules, punishable under Section 27 (d), 28(A) and 22(3) of the Act. Therefore, the same squarely fall under Section 36(A)(B) of the Act and therefore, Special Court has to conduct proceedings in S.C.No.5 of 2015. Thus, the said contention of the learned Senior Counsel is not sustainable.

13. The Apex Court, in Mohd. Shabbir (supra), on examination of the facts of the said case, gave a finding that there is no evidence in the said case to show that the appellant therein had any shop or that he distributes the said drug say arising out of conviction of the appellant therein. Whereas, in the present case proceedings in S.C.No.2 of 2015 are at trial stage. Therefore, the said principle is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

14. Likewise, in Pushpinder Kumar (supra), it is also a case of revision arising out of conviction. Therefore, according to this Court, the said principle is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. In Poornanand (supra) also the Delhi High Court had an occasion to deal with the criminal revision and gave certain findings based on the evidence. As stated supra, the present proceedings in 19 S.C.No.2 of 2015 are at trial stage, therefore, the said facts are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

15. As discussed supra, all the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioners are triable issues. The petitioners herein/A.1 to A.4 are at liberty to raise said defences before the Court below and the Court below to consider the same. The said defences cannot be considered by this Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The said principle was also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions.

16. It is relevant to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. State of Maharashtra4, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court to quash the same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the 4 2019 SCC OnLine SC 182 20 offences are disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to interfere. The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that were alleged against Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations has to be decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.

17. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited vs. State of Utter Pradesh5 the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to the various judgments rendered by it categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution.

5 2020 Latest Case law 620 SC 21

18. In view of the authoritative principle laid down by the Apex Court and in view of the above said discussion, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

19. In the result, This Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, shall dispose of the said Sessions Case vide S.C.No.2 of 2015 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition, shall stand closed.

___________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 17.01.2021 Note: Issue copy forthwith.

b/o. vvr

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Telangana High Court