Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 28.02.2025 vs State Of H.P. And Another on 5 March, 2025
2025:HHC:4608
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 70 of 2025
Reserved on: 28.02.2025
Date of Decision: 05.03.2025.
Hansmukh K. Chudgar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another ...Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
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.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
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
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
2025:HHC:4608
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.
2. 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).
3. 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
3
2025:HHC:4608
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.
4. 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.
5. 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
4
2025:HHC:4608
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
others (2014) 3 SCC 92 in support of his submission.
6. 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.
7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
8. 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:
“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
5
2025:HHC:4608the High Court to act only in cases of clear
abuse of process or where intervention is essential to
uphold the ends of justice.”
9. The present petition is to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
10. 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.
6
2025:HHC:4608
11. The present petition does not disclose the abuse of
the process of the Court and does not justify the invocation of
the inherent power of the Court.
12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed as
premature.
13. The observation made herein before shall remain
confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no
bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
5th March, 2025
(Chander)
[ad_1]
Source link