Allahabad High Court
Monish And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133217
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26221 of 2025
Applicant :- Monish And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Instructions dated 04.08.2025 filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Lalit Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State.
3. A statement has been made by Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA that he is equipped with complete instructions and he does not want to file any response and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that also does not propose to file any affidavit. With the consent of the parties, the application is decided at the fresh stage.
4. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the summoning/cognizance order dated 12.09.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly along-with quash the proceeding of Case No. 14612 of 2024, under Sections 18(Ga) / 27 (Kha)(ii), 18 Ka/28 & 188(ka) (i)/27 (Gha) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940, Police Station Deorania, District Bareilly (State Vs Monish & Another).
5. The case of the applicant is that a complaint came to be filed by the opposite party no. 2, Drug Inspector, Food Safety and Drug Administration, Bareilly on 12.09.2024 for the offences under Sections 18(Ga) / 27 (Kha)(ii), 18 Ka/28 & 18(Ka)(i)/27(Gha) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940, with an allegation that on the basis of secret information/tip that the applicants herein are running a medical store without licence and they are selling fake and noxious drugs, a direction is issued to make inquiry and an inspection was conducted pursuant whereto it revealed that applicants involved in commission of the offences. Recovery is alleged to have been made from the premises on the basis of the complaint so lodged on 12.02.2024 under the provisions of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940, the applicants came to be summon in Complaint Case No. 14612 of 2024 on 12.09.2024.
6. Questioning the summoning order, the applicants have filed the present application.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicants have not committed any offence under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. There has been no recovery made and whatever recovery is being shown that is on papers in the office of the opposite party no. 2. Further submission is that the applicants are innocent. However, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the fundamental and core question which goes to the root of the matter is that the summoning order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Chief Judical Magistrate, Bareilly is non speaking unreasoned and it does not even recite the case of the complainant and there is no prima facie recording of satisfaction with respect to the application for the penal sections. He submits that the order be set aside. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in M/s JM Laboratories vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 127.
9. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that from the perusal of the allegations in the complaint and the documents available on record, offences under Sections 18(Ga) / 27 (Kha)(ii), 18 Ka/28 & 188(ka) (i)/27 (Gha) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are made out but he could not dispute the fact that the summoning order is non speaking unreasoned. He submits that in view of the judgment in M/s JM Laboratories (supra), the summoning order be set aside, matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.
10. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.
11. The summoning order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in Complaint Case No. 46156 of 2024 reads as under.-
"?????? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???? ????????? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ????? ???? ??? ??, ?????? ??????? ? ????????? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ???
?????????? ? ???? ??? ????????? ?? ?????? ?????
?????????? ? ???? ??? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????????? ????? ? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ????-18 (?)/27 (?) (ii), 18? / 28 ??? 188 (?) (i) / 27 (?) ???? ??? ??????? ??????? 1940 ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ??? ?????????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ?????????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? 10.11.24 ??? ???"
12. A bare look to the summoning order would reveal that the same is unreasoned non speaking and even does not recite the case of the complainant. There is no prima facie satisfaction recorded by the court below about the attraction of the penal sections. In M/s JM Laboratories (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under.-
"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."
13. Since the summoning order does not test the parameters so envisaged in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in JM Laboratories (supra), thus this Court has no option but to set aside the summoning order while remitting back to the court below to pass fresh order.
14. According, the applications are being decided in the following terms:-
(a) the summoning order dated 12.09.2024 passed by court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 14612 of 2024 (State of UP Vs. Girdhari Yadav and others), under Sections 18(Ga) / 27 (Kha)(ii), 18 Ka/28 & 188(ka) (i)/27 (Gha) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 in leading and connected applications are set aside; (b) matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law; (c) for facilitation and early disposal, the certified copy of the order passed today shall be furnished to the court below by 21.08.2025.
15. With the above observations, the applications stand disposed of.
Order Date :- 6.8.2025
Rajesh
