Allahabad High Court
Madhusudan Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:161270
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33121 of 2025
Madhusudan Gupta
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Saksham Srivastava, Sheeladitya Harshvardhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Shri Saksham Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.P. Gupta, learned AGA for the State.
2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order dated 08.05.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot in Complaint Case No. 2899 of 2024 (Khadya Suraksha Adhikari Chitrakoot Vs. Madhusudan Gupta) under Section 58, 59(1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 at Police Station Karvi District Chitrakoot, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot, as well as stay the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2899 of 2024 (Khadya Suraksha Adhikari Chitrakoot Vs. Madhusudan Gupta).
3. This Court on 02.09.2025 has sought instructions/ permitted to learned AGA to file its reply. Today instructions have been forwarded by Shri J.P. Gupta under the signature of the Food Safety Officer, Prayagraj dated 10.09.2025 and according to him, they are self-sufficient and he does not propose to file any affidavit, thus, with the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant a complaint is stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant under Section 58, 59(1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 with an allegation that on 06.07.2023 at 9:30 hours an inspection came to be conducted in the establishment of the applicant and applicant on being asked the registration certificate or the licence, he did not submit the same and thereafter samples were drawn from the establishment which was sent for analysis and a report came to be submitted on 22.07.2023, according to which, the samples which were taken were not fit for human consumption hence the sample is unsafe and thereafter according to the learned counsel for the applicant, a first information report came to be lodged on 06.07.2023 by the police under Section 103 and 104 of Trade Mark Act, 1999, Section 63, 65 and 68 of Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. A complaint also came to be lodged on 29.04.2024 pursuant whereto the applicant has been summoned on 08.05.2024 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot.
5. Questioning the said order, the applicant has been filed the present application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that it has been passed in a mechanical manner without reciting the case of the complainant without recording any prima facie recording with regard to the applicability/ attraction of the penal sections. He seeks to rely upon the the judgement in SLP (Criminal) No.5067 of 2024, M/S J.M. Laboratories Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 30.1.2025. However, he submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.
7. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that form the perusal of the allegations contained in the complaint prima facie offences are made out and the case is triable, however, he could not dispute the fact that the summoning order has not been passed as per the mandate in M/S J.M. Laboratories (supra). He submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
9. The summoning order dated 08.05.2024 summoning the applicant under SSection 58, 59(1) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 reads as under:
"????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ????-58,59 (1) ????? ??????? ??? ???????-2006 ???? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ???????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? ???????? ????????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ?????? ????????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ? ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ??????? 2006 ????-77 ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ???????? ?????? 02.01.2024 ?? ?? ??? ??? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???
????
???? ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????- 58,59 (1) ????? ??????? ??? ???????-2006 ???? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ???????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ???????? ?????? 21.06.2024 ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ?"
10. A perusal of the summoning order would reveal that the summoning order is non-speaking and unreasoned and it does not even recite the case of the complainant less to say prima facie application of the penal sections.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JM Laboratories (supra), para 9 whereof is quoted hereinunder.-
"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 criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another 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. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Central Bureau of Investigation, Mehmood U Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others and Krishna Lal Chawla and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, the present appeal deserves to be allowed."
12. Since the summoning order itself is non-speaking and unreasoned and cryptic in nature, thus, it cannot be sustained.
13. The summoning order dated 08.05.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot in Complaint Case No. 2899 of 2024 (Khadya Suraksha Adhikari Chitrakoot Vs. Madhusudan Gupta) is set aside.
14. The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
15. For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 26.09.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition.
16. Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case.
17. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
18. Instructions filed today is taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A'.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.) September 11, 2025 A. Prajapati