Criminal Process can’t be set in Motion on Wrong Assumptions: HC quashes summons against L&T Directors

In a significant check on mechanical criminal prosecutions under environmental laws, the Allahabad High Court has stepped in to scrutinise how far courts can go while summoning senior corporate executives, after finding that a trial court proceeded on factually incorrect assumptions while summoning top directors of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (L&T) under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

The controversy arose from a criminal complaint filed by the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board alleging pollution violations at a temporary concrete batching plant set up by L&T for a Dedicated Freight Corridor project in Ghaziabad. Despite L&T having secured valid statutory consents to establish and operate the plant, senior executives, including the Chairman & Managing Director, Whole-Time Directors, CFO, and Independent Directors, were summoned by a Special Judicial Magistrate under Section 37 of the Air Act.

Challenging the move, the applicants argued that the prosecution was built on a false premise that the plant was operating without prior consent, even though the Board itself had issued consent orders covering the relevant period.

After examining the records, the High Court found the summoning order legally unsustainable, holding that the Magistrate had relied on an “incorrect fact” while issuing process. The Court noted that the consent dated 21.08.2020 was valid from 01.08.2020 to 31.07.2022, directly contradicting the trial court’s finding that the unit was operating without approval. Critically, the Court observed that apart from this erroneous assumption, no independent application of mind was visible in the summoning order.

Emphasising judicial responsibility at the pre-trial stage, the Court held that summons based on ex facie wrong facts cannot stand, and consequently set aside the summoning order dated 19.02.2022, remitting the matter back to the Magistrate for a fresh decision after due application of mind.

Case Title: Sudhindra V. Desai And 5 Ors. Vs. U.P. Pollution Control Buard Thru. Its Assistant Environmental Engineer Shri Ashutosh Pandey Lko. Anr.
Case No.: Application U/S 482 No. - 221 Of 2026
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Brij Raj Singh
Advocate for the Petitioner: Shivanshu Goswami
Advocate for the Respondent: Ashok Kumar Verma, Shri S.S.Rajawa,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com