Disposed

Lakhvindra Singh Arora and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 May 2025NA528/6640/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A summoning order that is non-speaking, unreasoned and cryptic, and does not recite the complainant's case, cannot be sustained. Following the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. JM Laboratories v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 INSC 127), the Allahabad High Court set aside the summoning order dated 10.07.2024 in a complaint under Sections 18/27 read with Sections 16, 17, 27 and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and remitted the matter to the trial court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

What the court decided

AI extract

Lakhvindra Singh Arora and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80708

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6640 of 2025

¶4

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.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

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.

¶7

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.

¶8

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,

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a complaint came

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

¶13

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:

¶14

" पततवललपपशहहई।पपकतरपरपररवतदलऔषधधननरलककउपसससतहह।

¶15

सपनतएववपततवललकतअवललकननकयतगयत।

¶16

पततवललकपअवललकनसपयहभलसपषहहनकपररवतदलऔषधधननरलककधजलतएटतककओर सपनवपकलगण

¶17

(1) शललखनवनदरधसवहअरलडतपपतशलहरववशधसवह , आयप 55 वषरननवतसलमकतननव० 2213, पलछपककतरफ , ववलमतकरट , सपकटर -38/ सल , सपकटर -14, जनपदचवणडलगढ -160014 ( ननमतरतत फमरकपननदपशक ),

¶18

(2) शलमतलगपरमलतककरकपयरआफशलअशलककपमतर , आयप 37 वषरननवतसल - डल 3, ममडल महउनसतलपजसकवल , सतहतबतदकपरकपत , हररयतणत -136135 ( ननमतरततफमरकपननदपशक ),

¶19

(3) नवनलदकपमतरपपतशलततरतचनदआयप 44 वषरननवतसल 14 एपपमकममपलपकस , चनदनवन फपस -2 जनपदमसपरत ( उ०प० )-281001 ( ननमतरततफमरमहनयपफहकचररवगकपनमसट )

¶20

(4) शलअशलककपमतरपपतअयलधयतदतसशमतरआयप 46 वषर , ननवतसलपलसटऑनफसभवनल तहसलल - नतदलन , जनपदहमलरपपर ( नहमतचलपदपश )-177048 ( ननमतरततफमरएनतधलनटकल कहनमसट )

¶21

(5) ननमतरततफमरमहससर - एच . एल . हपलसकपयरपत०धल० (A GMP & AN ISO 9001:2015 Certificat Co.) पततपलतटनमबर -25, इणडससटयलएररयत , फपस - ॥ , गहगरपट -177201, जनपदऊनत ( नहममचलपदपश ) कपनवरदअव०धतरत - औषधधएववपसतधनसतमगलअधधननयम - 1940 एववननयमतवलल 1945 ककधतरत 18/27, सपनठतधतरत 16 व 17. दणडनलयअपरतध धतरत 27 व 28 उपरलकधतरतओवकपअनतगरतपसवजतनधलयतजतततहह।कपसदजररधजसटरहम। अनभयपकगणउपरलककलनदनतवक 02-08-2024 कलजररयपसममनतलबनकयतजतए।पततवलल ननयतनदनतवककलवतसतपहतधजरलअनभयपकगणपपशहल। " 8. A perusal of the summoning order would reveal that it is nonspeaking 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.

¶22

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JM Laboratories (supra) , para 9 whereof is quoted hereinunder.-

¶23

"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 nonspeaking 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."

¶24

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.

¶25

Accordingly, the summoning order dated 10.07.2024 is set aside.

¶26

The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

¶27

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.

¶28

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of .

¶29

The instructions filed today are taken on record and marked as Appendix-A.

¶30

Order Date :- 15.5.2025 A. Prajapati

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lakhvindra Singh Arora and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Lakhvindra Singh Arora and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases