Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 22.7.2025 vs Union Of India on 30 July, 2025
2025:HHC:25006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 524 of 2024.
.
Reserved on: 22.7.2025.
Date of Decision: 30.7.2025.
M/s Neptune Life Sciences (P) Ltd. & ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India ...Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Nikhil Kanwar, Advocate, vice Mr. Chander Shekhar Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Central Government Counsel.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of Complaint No. 10 of 2024, dated March 13, 2024, titled Union of India vs. M/s Neptune Life Sciences and others pending before the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court) and other consequential proceedings arising out of it and the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2025 21:25:17 :::CIS 22025:HHC:25006 order dated 11.1.2022 and committal order dated 12.12.2023, passed by learned Trial Court (The parties shall hereinafter be .
referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant-Drugs Inspector filed a complaint before learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence under Section 18(a)(vi) read with Section 16 punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Drugs Act). It was asserted that Drugs Inspector drew a sample of the drugs Chlorhexidine Gluconate Mouthwash I.P. 100 ml. (Dento Fresh) Batch No. NFE458, manufactured by the petitioner, M/S Neptune Life Sciences Pvt.
Ltd., and sent it to the Government Analyst, Regional Drugs Testing Laboratory, Sector 39-C, Chandigarh after completing the codal formalities. Government Analyst issued a report stating that the sample was not of standard quality as it did not conform to the claim as per the IP-2014 addendum 2015 in respect of the assay of Chlorhexidine Gluconate solution diluted, calculated as Chlorhexidine Gluconate. The Drugs Inspector sent the report to Mr. Karan Kakkar (M/s Park Pharmaceuticals) from whom the ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2025 21:25:17 :::CIS 3 2025:HHC:25006 sample was taken. The Drugs Inspector conducted the investigation and, after completion of the investigation, filed a .
complaint before the learned Trial Court.
3. Being aggrieved by the filing of the complaint, the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing it and the consequential proceedings arising out of it. It was asserted that the Drug Inspector was not notified as Drug Inspector in terms of Section 21 of the Drugs Act for the specified area to which the matter pertains, and the complaint filed by him is not maintainable. Learned Trial Court summoned the petitioners without any application of mind. The summoning order was passed in violation of Sections 200 to 204 of the Cr.PC. The case was wrongly committed to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. The Courts at Nalagarh had no jurisdiction as the sample was drawn at Batnala in Punjab. There is a violation of Section 23(4)(i) of the Drugs Act. The copy of memorandum in Form-I and specimen impression were to be sent separately by registered post, whereas they were sent together. There is no compliance with the requirement of Section 34 of the Drugs Act. No averment was made regarding the vicarious liability of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. An application was ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2025 21:25:17 :::CIS 4 2025:HHC:25006 filed for sending the sample to Central Drugs Laboratory. Such an application could not have been filed when no complaint/ .
proceedings were pending before the Court. There is no averment regarding the storage condition. The grant of sanction violates the guidelines issued by the Central Government. No inquiry was conducted as required under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., which vitiated the proceedings. The offences were to be tried summarily by the Court of Magistrate as per Section 36A of the Drugs Act, and learned Magistrate erred in committing the complaint to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh for trial. There are various discrepancies in the complainant's case. The complaint filed by the complainant-Drugs Inspector is time-barred. The report was received on 24.5.2018. The complaint was filed on 1.1.2022.
Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the complaint and consequential proceedings be quashed.
4. The petition is opposed by filing a reply making a preliminary submission regarding lack of maintainability. The contents of the petition were denied on merit. It was asserted that the petitioners were ordered to be summoned vide order dated 11.1.2022. Committal order was passed on 12.12.2023. There is no sufficient ground for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2025 21:25:17 :::CIS 5 2025:HHC:25006 this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petitioners were arrayed as the accused as per the record provided by the Company .
during the joint investigation. The material relied upon by the complainant is yet to pass the test of authenticity and admissibility during the trial. The petition is premature and has been filed to put pressure upon the respondent. The Drugs Inspector had handed over one sealed sample portion along with the original test report to the petitioners as required under Section 25(2) of the Drugs Act. The petitioners were arrayed as accused based on the record provided during the inspection. The petitioners are whole-time Directors of the Firm, and it is a matter of trial whether they are involved in day-to-day affairs of the Company or not. The appointment of Drugs Inspector was made by the Central Government as per Section 21 of the Drugs Act. Samples were taken as per rules. The case was rightly committed to the Court of a learned Special Judge. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
5. I have heard Mr. Nikhil Kanwar, learned vice counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent-UOI and have gone through the records carefully.
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2025 21:25:17 :::CIS 62025:HHC:25006
6. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. passed the following order on .
11.1.2022: -
"From the perusal of the challan and other documents placed on record, there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons under Section 18(a)(i) & 18(a)(vi) read with Section 16 punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and accordingly, accused persons be summoned for 07.05.2022."
7. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JM Laboratories v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 208, that an order issuing summons to the accused is a serious matter and the learned Magistrate is required to apply his mind to conclude that there exist sufficient reasons for summoning the accused. It was observed:
"8. In the judgment and order of even date in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh. We have observed thus:
"33. It could be seen from the aforesaid order that, except for recording the submissions of the complainant, no reasons are recorded for issuing the process against the accused persons.
34. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2025 21:25:17 :::CIS 7 2025:HHC:25006 Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749 (supra):
"28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal .
case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary, in support thereof, and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing a charge home to the accused? It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before the summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."
35. This Court has held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. It has been held that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. This Court held that the Magistrate is required to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary, in support thereof and as to whether that would be sufficient for proceeding ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2025 21:25:17 :::CIS 8 2025:HHC:25006 against the accused. It has been held that the Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused.
.
36. The said law would be consistently following by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda (2015) 12 SCC 420 and Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 5 SCC 435.
37. Recently, a Bench of this Court to which one of us (Gavai, J.) was a member, in the case of Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 (supra), has observed thus:
"38. The order of issuance of the process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not.
The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt that the order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609, which reads thus:
"51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognisance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This section relates to the commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2025 21:25:17 :::CIS 9 2025:HHC:25006 taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the .
materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused.
52. A wide discretion has been given as to the grant or refusal of process, and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process, and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction.
53. However, the words "sufficient ground for proceeding" appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance.
It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind, that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused, and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect."::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2025 21:25:17 :::CIS 10
2025:HHC:25006
39. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Ashoke Mal Bafna (supra).
40. In the present case, leaving aside there being no .
reasons in support of the order of the issuance of process, as a matter of fact, it is clear from the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that there was no such order passed at all. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, based on the record, has presumed that there was an order of issuance of process. We find that such an approach is unsustainable in law. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed."
9. In the present case also, no reasons even for the namesake have been assigned by the learned Magistrate.
The summoning order is totally a non-speaking one. We therefore find that in light of the view taken by us in the criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh", and the legal position as has been laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749:
1997 INSC 714, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609: 2015 INSC 1, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda (2015) 12 SCC 420:
2015 INSC 983 and Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 5 SCC 435: 2021 INSC 160, the present appeal deserves to be allowed."
8. This does not mean that the learned Magistrate was required to write a detailed order. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramila Devi v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 886, that a Magistrate is not supposed to write a detailed order while summoning the accused. It is sufficient that ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2025 21:25:17 :::CIS 11 2025:HHC:25006 there is an indication that the Magistrate had applied his/her mind. It was observed: -
.
16. In the present case, we find that the Additional Judicial Commissioner has taken cognisance while recording a finding that, from a perusal of the case diary and case record, a prima facie case was made out against the accused, including the Appellants. In Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424, this Court held that an order of the Magistrate taking cognisance cannot be faulted only because it was not a reasoned order;
relevant paragraphs being as under:
'14. Time and again, it has been stated by this Court that the summoning order under Section 204 of the Code requires no explicit reasons to be stated because it is imperative that the Magistrate must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the police report and the materials filed therewith.
15. In Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B. [(2000) 1 SCC 722: 2000 SCC (Cri) 303], the following passage will be apposite in this context : (SCC p. 726, para 12) "12. If there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened trial courts be further burdened with such extra work? The time has come to adopt all possible measures to expedite the court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different stages merely because the counsel would address arguments at all stages, the snail-paced progress of proceedings in trial courts would further be slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running into several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order has been passed for culminating the proceedings before ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2025 21:25:17 :::CIS 12 2025:HHC:25006 them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to the next stages in the trial." (emphasis supplied) .
16.In Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi [(1976) 3 SCC 736: 1976 SCC (Cri) 507], this Court held that it is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. It was further held that in deciding whether a process should be issued, the Magistrate can take into consideration improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations. The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter, and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him. It was further held that: (SCC p. 741, para 5) "5. ... Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion it is not for the High Court, or even this Court, to substitute its discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused."
17. In Chief Controller of Imports & Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal [(2003) 4 SCC 139: 2003 SCC (Cri) 788], this Court, in para 9, held as under: (SCC pp. 145-46) "9. In determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied of is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons. This question was considered recently in U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 745] and ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2025 21:25:17 :::CIS 13 2025:HHC:25006 after noticing the law laid down in Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B. [(2000) 1 SCC 722: 2000 SCC (Cri) 303] it was held as follows: (U.P. Pollution case [(2000) 3 SCC 745], SCC p. 749, para 6) .
'6. The legislature has stressed the need to record reasons in certain situations, such as dismissal of a complaint without issuing a process. There is no such legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing a detailed order while issuing a summons. The process issued to the accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate had not passed a speaking order."
18. In U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Bhupendra Kumar Modi [(2009) 2 SCC 147: (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 679], this Court, in para 23, held as under: (SCC p. 154) "23. It is a settled legal position that at the stage of the issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same, and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused."
19. This being the settled legal position, the order passed by the Magistrate could not be faulted with only on the ground that the summoning order was not a reasoned order.' (emphasis supplied)
17. The view in Bhushan Kumar (supra) was reiterated in Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 and State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539. This Court in Rakhi Mishra v. State of Bihar, (2017) 16 SCC 772, restated the settled proposition of law enunciated in Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta, (2015) 3 SCC 424, as under:
'4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. We are of the considered opinion that the High Court erred in allowing the application filed by Respondents 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and quashing the criminal ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2025 21:25:17 :::CIS 14 2025:HHC:25006 proceedings against them. A perusal of the FIR would clearly show that the appellant alleged cruelty against Respondents 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. This Court in Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta [Sonu Gupta v. Deepak .
Gupta, (2015) 3 SCC 424: (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 265] held as follows: (SCC p. 429, para 8) "8. ... At the stage of cognisance and summoning, the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognisance of the offence ... to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments, nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials would lead to conviction or not."
5. The order passed by the trial court taking cognisance against R-2 and R-4 to R-9 is in conformity with the law laid down in the above judgment. It is settled law that the power under Section 482 CrPC is exercised by the High Court only in exceptional circumstances only when a prima facie case is not made out against the accused. The test applied by this Court for interference at the initial stage of a prosecution is whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish a case.' (emphasis supplied)
9. In the present case, it is undisputed that no challan was filed before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh and a complaint under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(b)(i) read with Section 16 punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs Act was filed. Hence, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in stating that he had gone through the ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2025 21:25:17 :::CIS 15 2025:HHC:25006 challan and the accompanied documents. The fact that he had mentioned in the order that he had gone through the challan .
shows that he had not applied his mind and passed the order mechanically; hence, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is not sustainable.
10. In view of the above, the order summoning the petitioners/accused is ordered to be set aside.
11. The matter is remitted to the learned Trial Court to proceed as per the provisions of Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
12. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 30th July, 2025 (Chander) ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2025 21:25:17 :::CIS