Allahabad High Court
Lakhvindra Singh Arora And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80708
Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6640 of 2025
Applicant :- Lakhvindra Singh Arora And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Shri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants who are four in number and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State.
2. Today instructions have been forwarded under the signatures of the then Drug Inspector, Etah, dated 14.05.2025. Learned State Law Officer has submitted that he is armed with the instruction which was sufficient for the disposal of the application. He further submits that he does not propose to file any response, the applications are being decided on the basis of the documents available of record, thus, with the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.PC. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of W.S.C.C. No.165 of 2024 (State of U.P. through Drug Inspector Vs. Lakhvinder Singh Arora and others), Under Sections 18/27 read with Sections 16 and 17 and Section 27 & 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Police Station Kotwali Aliganj, District Etah pending in the court of Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Etah,
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a complaint came to be lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicants relatable to commission of the offences, under Sections 18/27 read with Sections 16 and 17 and Section 27 & 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, wherein the allegation is that during the course of the inspection conducted in the premises with the firm of the applicant had though manufactured certain medicines i.e. tablets, namely, WAXIM-100, CEL-HL-100, CEL-HL-200 and LOCPOD-200, however, the same was found not as per the parameters. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the complaint was lodged on 09.07.2024 and thereafter the applicants have been summoned on 10.07.2024 by the District Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Etah. Learned counsel has for the applicants has submitted that though there are various grounds for attacking the summoning order but he submits that the fundamental and the crucial ground would be sufficient that the summoning order is totally non-speaking, unreasoned and it does not even recite the case of the complainant. According to him, the summoning order is not as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. JM Laboratories vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 127. However, he submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.
5. Learned AGA on the other hand as per the instructions so produced today has submitted that from the allegations contained in the complaint, the offences under the penal sections are prime facie attracted and further the case is triable, however, he submits that the summoning order is cryptic, thus, according to him, the summoning order dated 10.07.2024 be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
7. Before delving into the tenability of the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, it would be apposite to extract the summoning order dated 10.07.2024:
"???????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ???????? ??????? ????
???? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ????
???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?????????
(1) ???? ???????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ????, ??? 55 ???? ?????? ???? ??? 2213, ???? ?? ???, ??? ???????, ??????-38/??, ??????-14, ???? ?????????-160014 (???????? ?????? ??????),
(2) ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????, ??? 37 ???? ??????-?? 3, ???? ???? ?????? ?????, ??????? ???????????, ???????-136135 (???????? ?????? ??????),
(3) ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????????? ??? 44 ???? ?????? 14 ? ????? ??????????, ????? ?? ???-2 ???? ????? (??????)-281001 (???????? ???? ??????????????? ???????)
(4) ???? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? 46 ????, ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?????-?????, ???? ??????? (?????? ??????)-177048 (???????? ???? ????????? ???????)
(5) ???????? ???? ??????-??. ??. ????? ???? ???????? (A GMP & AN ISO 9001:2015 Certificat Co.) ??? ????? ?????-25, ?????????? ?????, ???-?, ??????-177201, ???? ??? (??????? ??????) ?? ??????? ??? ????-???? ??? ??????? ??????? ???????-1940 ??? ???????? 1945 ?? ???? 18/27, ????? ???? 16 ? 17. ??????? ????? ???? 27 ? 28 ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?????????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ?? ?????? 02-08-2024 ?? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ??? ???"
8. A perusal of the summoning order would reveal that it is non-speaking and unreasoned and cryptic as it does not even recite the case of the complainant so as to a prime facie apply to the said penal provisions.
9. 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."
10. Considering the fact that the summoning order is cryptic and it does not recite the case of the complainant. It cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 10.07.2024 is set aside.
12. The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
13. For facilitating early disposal, the parties shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 30.05.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition.
14. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
15. The instructions filed today are taken on record and marked as Appendix-A.
Order Date :- 15.5.2025
A. Prajapati
