Allahabad High Court
Shri Ankur Agarwal And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:165018
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33545 of 2025
Shri Ankur Agarwal And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Devaang Savla, Prateek Dawar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Shri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA for the State.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by Shri I.S. Yadav on behalf of the counsel for the opposite party no. 2 which is taken on record.
3. A statement has been made by learned counsel for the applicants that he does not propose to file any further affidavits, thus, with the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.
4. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash the impugned summoning order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Court of C.J.M. Etah, Bailable Warrant dated 06.11.2024 & Non-Bailable Warrant dated 08.01.2025 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Etah as well as all consequential orders and the entire proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.29067 of 2023 (State of U.P. through Drugs Inspector, Etah Vs. Ankur Agarwal & Others) under Sections 16, 17, 27 & 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 & Rules, 1945, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Etah.
5. The case of the applicants is that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicants on 12.12.2023 under Sections 16, 17, 27 & 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 & Rules, 1945 with an allegation that an inspection was conducted by the team comprising of the opposite party no. 2 and other members on 18.12.2021, wherein samples of eight drugs were drawn for being sent for test. Post receiving of the samples, copy whereof was served upon the applicants which were found to be not as per the conformity and thereafter the impugned complaint came to be lodged pursuant whereto the applicants came to be summoned under Sections 16, 17, 27 & 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 & Rules, 1945 in Complaint Case No.29067 of 2023 (State of U.P. through Drugs Inspector, Etah Vs. Ankur Agarwal & Others).
6. Questioning the said order, the applicants has been filed the present application.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants 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.
8. 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.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
10. The summoning order dated 14.12.2023 summoning the applicants under Sections 16, 17, 27 & 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 & Rules, 1945 reads as under:
"?? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ???????? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ???? ????
????????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ?????? 6.2.2024 ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???"
11. 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.
12. 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."
13. Since the summoning order itself is non-speaking and unreasoned and cryptic in nature, thus, it cannot be sustained.
14. The summoning order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Court of C.J.M. Etah is set aside.
15. The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
16. For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 09.10.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition.
17. Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case.
18. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
September 16, 2025
A. Prajapati
