Dismissed¶40

Hasmukh K Chudgar v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Mar 2025CRMMO/70/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hansmukh K. Chudgar v. State of H.P., Cr. MMO No. 70 of 2025, HHC (Rakesh Kainthla, J., 05.03.2025): Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing petition DISMISSED AS PREMATURE; complaint under Sections 18(a)(i)/27(d) Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940; notice (not summons) issued on Section 528 BNSS impleadment application by Drug Inspector re Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Godown); notice to proposed accused no infirmity (Yashodhan Singh, (2023) 9 SCC 108); Section 482 powers sparing (Ajay Malik, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185); remedy before Trial Court; Section 319/Section 202 Cr.P.C. grounds not decided.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the order sheets filed by the petitioner, the Court had not ordered issuance of any summons to the petitioner; it had only issued notice of the application for impleading him as an accused. ¶35

Hasmukh K Chudgar Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was premature, only notice of the application under Section 528 BNSS having been issued to the petitioner and no summons having been ordered. +2 more

¶35

Court's answer

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Applying Yashodhan Singh v. State of U.P., notice to a proposed accused before summoning is not required, but if the Court issues such notice there is no infirmity in it; since only notice had been issued, the petition was premature and the petitioner's remedy was to appear before the learned Trial Court and satisfy it that he is not required to be impleaded as an accused.

¶35

Key takeaways

The petition did not disclose abuse of the process of the Court and did not justify invocation of the High Court's inherent power; it was accordingly dismissed as premature.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Rakesh Kainthla, J.), Cr. MMO No. 70 of 2025, decided 05.03.2025: A petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Hansmukh K. Chudgar seeking quashing of a complaint under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and consequential orders was dismissed as premature. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra had only ordered issuance of notice, returnable for 18.2.2025, on an application under Section 528 BNSS filed by the Drug Inspector to implead Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Godown) through its Director; no summons had been issued to the petitioner. Relying on Yashodhan Singh v. State of U.P., (2023) 9 SCC 108 (notice to a proposed accused before summoning is not required, and its issuance causes no infirmity) and deciding the matter per the parameters in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, the Court held the petitioner was not yet an accused who could challenge the complaint or summoning order; his remedy lay before the Trial Court. The petition disclosed no abuse of process justifying inherent-power intervention. Grounds regarding Section 319 Cr.P.C., Section 202 Cr.P.C. and lack of jurisdiction were not reached. Observations were confined to disposal of the petition and do not bear on merits. Ashish Dhamija (2024 STPL 4677 HP) and Hardeep Singh (2014) 3 SCC 92 were cited by counsel only.

¶1

2025:HHC:4608

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MMO No. 70 of 2025 Reserved on: 28.02.2025 Date of Decision: 05.03.2025.

¶4

Hansmukh K. Chudgar ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and another

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶10

For the Petitioner	:	Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with M/s Arsh Chauhan and Anshuman K. Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent	:	Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General.

¶11

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶12

The State of Himachal Pradesh, through Drug Inspector, filed a complaint in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, H.P. against eight persons for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and

¶13

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶14

¶15

2025:HHC:4608

¶16

the rules made thereunder. Subsequently, the Drug Inspector filed an application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Surakasha Sanhita (BNSS) for impleading the Director of Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Godown) as one of the accused (photocopy Annexure-18). It was asserted that the licence was issued in the name of Mr. Hansmukh K. Chudgar in the capacity of the Director. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Godwon) stood impleaded through Mr. Deshmukhi K. Chudgar as the proprietor. Hence a prayer was made to implead Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Godown) through its Director.

¶17

The learned Trial Court ordered the issuance of notice of the application under Section 528 of BNSS to Mr. Hansmuk K. Chudgar returnable for 18.2.2025 vide order dated 6.1.2025 (photocopy Annexure-19).

¶18

Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal complaint, summoning order and the consequent orders on the ground that power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. could not have been exercised by the learned Magistrate. The cognisance was wrongly taken. No application could have been filed to add a

¶19

¶20

2025:HHC:4608

¶21

person as a party without leading the evidence. Summoning order does not show the application of mind. The mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. was not conducted. The petitioner had no link with the commission of crime. The company was not implemented as a party. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint be quashed and the consequent order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kangra be set aside.

¶22

I have heard Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by M/s Arsh Chauhan and Anshuman K. Sharma, Advocates, for the petitioner and Mr. Gautam Sood, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

¶23

Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court had no jurisdiction to summon the petitioner without recording the evidence. The company was not implemented as a party and the proceedings against the petitioner are without jurisdiction. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Ashish Dhamija and another Vs. State of H.P. 2024 STPL 4677 HP and the judgment of

¶24

¶25

2025:HHC:4608

¶26

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2014) 3 SCC 92 in support of his submission.

¶27

Mr. Gautam Sood, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State submitted that the learned Magistrate had only ordered the issuance of notice of the application to the petitioner and no summoning order was passed. The present petition is premature. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶28

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶29

It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185 that the power under Section 482 of CrPC is to be exercised sparingly to prevent the abuse of the process of justice or to secure the ends of justice. It was observed:

¶30

“8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing

¶31

¶32

2025:HHC:4608

¶33

the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice.”

¶34

The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶35

It is apparent from the perusal of the photocopies of order sheets filed by the petitioner that the Court had not ordered the issuance of any summons to the petitioner to face the complaint filed before the learned Trial Court. It had only issued the notice of the application for impleading the petitioner as the accused. It was laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yashodhan Singh v. State of U.P. , (2023) 9 SCC 108 that the notice is not required to be issued to the proposed accused before summoning him, however, if the Court issues such a notice, there is no infirmity in it. Since the Court has only issued the notice of the application to the petitioner, therefore, present petition is premature as he is not even an accused who can challenge the filing of the complaint and the summoning order. His remedy is to appear before the learned Trial Court and satisfy the learned Trial Court that he is not required to be impleaded as an accused.

¶36

¶37

2025:HHC:4608

¶38