Quashed

Fuzail Ahmed Farooqui v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Oct 2023WP/3888/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition challenging an unreasoned order of issuance of process under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The Court quashed the impugned order directing the Magistrate to pass a reasoned order afresh without examining the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of issuance of process in RCC No. 219/SW/2013 quashed and set aside; learned Magistrate directed to pass a reasoned order afresh.

Fuzail Ahmed Farooqui Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

bipin prithiani

13-wp-3888.18.doc

BIPIN Digitally signed byBIPIN DHARMENDER DHARMENDER PRITHIANI PRITHIANI Date: 2023.10.0618:45:03 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3888 OF 2018

¶7

Fuzail Ahmed Farooqui … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶8

¶9

Ms. Daksha A. Parmar i/by Prajat H. Jaggi for the Petitioner. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶10

¶11

CORAM: R. N. LADDHA, J.

¶12

DATE : 6 OCTOBER 2023

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

. Heard Ms Daksha A. Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr H. J. Dedhia, learned APP for the respondentstate/original complainant.

¶15

Upon perusal of the order dated 8 July 2013 passed in RCC No.219/SW/2013 by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 46^th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai, it is apparent that this order of issuance of process is a cryptic and unreasoned. The order reads thus:

¶16

“Against accused person :- Under Section 26(2)(i) r/w Section 27(3)(d), 27(3)(e), r/w Section 3(1) (zz) (v) and Section 30(2)(a), Section 59, Section 31 r/w 2.1.2 Section 63 of Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 & Food Safety & Standards Food Products Standards and Food Additives), Regulation 2011 &

bipin prithiani

13-wp-3888.18.doc

Commissioner of FDA, Notification No, FSSA/ Notification /686-2012/7 Dated 19 th July 2012.

¶21

Returnable on 12.8.13

¶22

sd/-

¶23

Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 46^th Mazgaon Court, Mumbai-10.”

¶24

Upon perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clear that the order of issuance of a process is a cryptic and unreasoned order. The learned Magistrate needs to demonstrate such application of mind by giving reasons as to why the process is issued against the accused.

¶25

Therefore, the order of issue process is liable to be quashed and set aside. However, at the same time, it must be considered that if the Magistrate did not fulfil his duty, the respondent/ complainant should not be held responsible and should not have to endure any consequence due to Magistrate’s failure. As a result, the impugned order of issuance of process in RCC No. 219/SW/ 2013 pending before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 46^th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai, is quashed and set aside, and the learned Magistrate is directed to pass a reasoned order afresh.

¶26

The petition as such stands disposed of. It goes without saying that if necessary, the petitioner is free to seek legal redress for his grievance if the occasion so arises. It is made clear that this

bipin prithiani

13-wp-3888.18.doc

Court has not examined the merits of the case, and the trial Court shall pass an order afresh on its own merits in accordance with the law.

¶31

R. N. LADDHA, J.

Fuzail Ahmed Farooqui v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fuzail Ahmed Farooqui v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gac Shipping (India) Pct., Ltd., and Anr. Vs Union of India through Dadi Sunil

Sumit Jain Vs Ranjan Dilip Vanigota and Anr.

Girimon P.T. Vs Murtaza Merchant and Anr.

Onkar Ramchandra Athawale Prop. of M/S. Bhima Colour Cartoons Vs Awade Industries Private Limited and Anr.

Alamdar Cashew Industries through Sole Proprietor Badshah Gafur Madar Vs Ravindra Vinayak Kulkarni and Ors.

Subhash Dhondiram Kamble Vs Pawan Shridhar Jadhav and Anr.