Naresh Chauhan v. State of U.P. and another), in which, on

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application has been filed by applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.87 of 2024 (State of U.P. through Drug Inspector Vs. M/s Real Care Life Sciences and others) under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi) read with Section 16, 17-A(f), 17-B(d), 18-B and Sections 27(b)(i), 27(c), 27(d), 28-A, 22(3) Drug and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Rule- 1945, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Etah pending before the Court of learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.1, Etah as well as Non Bailable Warrant dated 22.8.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.1, Etah and all consequential proceedings thereon.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that on previous occasion summoning order was challenged by means of Application U/S 528 BNSS No.19407 of 2025 (Naresh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. and another), in which, on 5.6.2025 following order was passed: "1. Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. This is an application U/s 528 BNSS filed for quashing the summoning order dated

18.05.2022 passed by CJM, Etah along with the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 87 of 2024 (State vs. M/s Real Care Life Sciences & Ors) U/s 18 (a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 27 (b) (i), 27 (c), 27 (d), 28(a), 33(3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Etah pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Etagh.

3. On 28.05.2025, this Court proceeded to pass the following order: 2 NA528 No. 42128 of 2025 "1. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that though the summoning order dated 08.05.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah is non speaking unreasoned and even does not recite the case of the complainant. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. JM Laboratories vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 127.

2. Sri Indrajeet Yadav, learned AGA seeks time to obtain instructions.

3. Time prayed for is granted.

4. Put up this case on 05.06.2025, as fresh."

4. Today Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer submits that he does not propose to take any further time and the matter be decided on the basis of documents available on record in view of the order which is being proposed to be passed.

5. The case of the applicant is that the opposite party no.2 preferred a complaint U/s 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 on 06.12.2021 in the court of ACJM, Etah with the allegations that on 18.09.2019, the opposite party no.2 had collected the samples from M/s Shiva Medical Store and the same was sent for analyst report and, thereafter, a notice was issued as the sample was found of sub-standard. It is also alleged that M/s Shiva Medical Store had come with a stand that medicine in question was purchased from Shiv Om Medical Store, Shrinagar Pipal Wali Gali, G.T. Road, Etah. Thereafter, notice was issued to M/s Shiv Om Medical Store and the proprietor of Ms/ Shiv Om Medical Store informed that the said medicine was purchased from M.M. Com Pharma on 07.06.2019, thereafter the notice was issued on 24.02.2020 to M/s Malcom Pharma who submitted that the drug in question was purchased from M/s Real Care Lifesciences, Solan and thereafter, a notice was issued to M/s Real Care Lifesciences. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that post lodging of the complaint on 18.05.2022, the court of CJM, Etah proceeded to summon the applicant U/s 18 (a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 27 (b) (i), 27 (c), 27 (d), 28(a), 33(3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

6. Questioning the summoning order, the applicant has filed the present application.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order summoning the applicant under the above noted sections cannot be sustained for a simple reasons as the same is totally non speaking, unreasoned and even it does not recite the case of the complainant. It has been passed by total non application of mind. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.M. Laboratories vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 127.

8. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that though offences are made out from the bare perusal of the complaint but according to him the summoning order is cryptic and has not been passed in accordance with law. He submits that the order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to pass a fresh order.

9. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

10. Before proceeding to embark, an enquiry upon the tenability of the arguments so 3 NA528 No. 42128 of 2025 sought to be raised by the rival parties, it would be apposite to extract the summoning order dated 18.05.2022: "आज यह पिरवाद पिरवादी दीपक कु मार औषिध िनरीक्षक जनपद एटा (अितिरक्त प्रभार) द्वारा प्रस्तुत िकया गया। प्राथर्नापत्र पिरवाद के रूप में दजर् रिजस्टर हो। िवपक्षीगण को सम्मन िदनांक 20.6.2022 के िलए जारी िकये जाये। पत्रावली िनयत िदनांक को पेश हो।" 11. A perusal of the summoning order dated 18.05.2022 would reveal that the same is non speaking, unreasoned and even it does not recite the case of the complainant. Less to say about the prima-facie application of the penal provisions. In the case of J.M. Laboratories (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had propounded the law which observed as under: "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."

12. Since the summoning order is cryptic and non-speaking and probably skips and overlooks the crucial aspect of the matter and suffers from the fundamental error, thus, the summoning order dated 18.05.2022 passed by CJM, Etah is set aside and the matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

13. For facilitation, the parties to submit a certified copy of this order by 27.06.2025." 3-A. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that by order dated

5.6.2025, summoning order dated 18.5.2022 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the court concerned to pass a fresh order. Learned counsel for applicant submits that instead of passing fresh order, non bailable warrant has been issued.

4. Learned AGA not disputed the aforesaid fact and submits that the matter may be remitted back to the court concerned and may be directed to comply with the order dated 5.6.2025 passed by this Court.

5. In view of the fact that summoning order dated 18.5.2022 has been set 4 NA528 No. 42128 of 2025 aside by this Court and the matter was remitted back to the court concerned for decision afresh by order dated 5.6.2025 passed in Application U/S 528 BNSS No.19407 of 2025 (Naresh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. and another), it was imperative for the court concerned to have consider the aspect of issuing fresh summoning order and without issuing fresh summoning order, court concerned could not have issued non bailable warrant dated 22.8.2025.

6. In view of above, non bailable warrant dated 22.8.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.1, Etah is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned for compliance of order dated

5.6.2025 passed by this Court.

7. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. November 25, 2025 D. Tamang (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application has been filed by applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.87 of 2024 (State of U.P. through Drug Inspector Vs. M/s Real Care Life Sciences and others) under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi) read with Section 16, 17-A(f), 17-B(d), 18-B and Sections 27(b)(i), 27(c), 27(d), 28-A, 22(3) Drug and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Rule- 1945, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Etah pending before the Court of learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.1, Etah as well as Non Bailable Warrant dated 22.8.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.1, Etah and all consequential proceedings thereon.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that on previous occasion summoning order was challenged by means of Application U/S 528 BNSS No.19407 of 2025 (Naresh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. and another), in which, on 5.6.2025 following order was passed: "1. Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. This is an application U/s 528 BNSS filed for quashing the summoning order dated

18.05.2022 passed by CJM, Etah along with the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 87 of 2024 (State vs. M/s Real Care Life Sciences & Ors) U/s 18 (a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 27 (b) (i), 27 (c), 27 (d), 28(a), 33(3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Etah pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Etagh.

3. On 28.05.2025, this Court proceeded to pass the following order: 2 NA528 No. 42128 of 2025 "1. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that though the summoning order dated 08.05.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah is non speaking unreasoned and even does not recite the case of the complainant. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. JM Laboratories vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 127.

2. Sri Indrajeet Yadav, learned AGA seeks time to obtain instructions.

3. Time prayed for is granted.

4. Put up this case on 05.06.2025, as fresh."

4. Today Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer submits that he does not propose to take any further time and the matter be decided on the basis of documents available on record in view of the order which is being proposed to be passed.

5. The case of the applicant is that the opposite party no.2 preferred a complaint U/s 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 on 06.12.2021 in the court of ACJM, Etah with the allegations that on 18.09.2019, the opposite party no.2 had collected the samples from M/s Shiva Medical Store and the same was sent for analyst report and, thereafter, a notice was issued as the sample was found of sub-standard. It is also alleged that M/s Shiva Medical Store had come with a stand that medicine in question was purchased from Shiv Om Medical Store, Shrinagar Pipal Wali Gali, G.T. Road, Etah. Thereafter, notice was issued to M/s Shiv Om Medical Store and the proprietor of Ms/ Shiv Om Medical Store informed that the said medicine was purchased from M.M. Com Pharma on 07.06.2019, thereafter the notice was issued on 24.02.2020 to M/s Malcom Pharma who submitted that the drug in question was purchased from M/s Real Care Lifesciences, Solan and thereafter, a notice was issued to M/s Real Care Lifesciences. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that post lodging of the complaint on 18.05.2022, the court of CJM, Etah proceeded to summon the applicant U/s 18 (a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 27 (b) (i), 27 (c), 27 (d), 28(a), 33(3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

6. Questioning the summoning order, the applicant has filed the present application.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order summoning the applicant under the above noted sections cannot be sustained for a simple reasons as the same is totally non speaking, unreasoned and even it does not recite the case of the complainant. It has been passed by total non application of mind. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.M. Laboratories vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 127.

8. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that though offences are made out from the bare perusal of the complaint but according to him the summoning order is cryptic and has not been passed in accordance with law. He submits that the order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to pass a fresh order.

9. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

10. Before proceeding to embark, an enquiry upon the tenability of the arguments so 3 NA528 No. 42128 of 2025 sought to be raised by the rival parties, it would be apposite to extract the summoning order dated 18.05.2022: "आज यह पिरवाद पिरवादी दीपक कु मार औषिध िनरीक्षक जनपद एटा (अितिरक्त प्रभार) द्वारा प्रस्तुत िकया गया। प्राथर्नापत्र पिरवाद के रूप में दजर् रिजस्टर हो। िवपक्षीगण को सम्मन िदनांक 20.6.2022 के िलए जारी िकये जाये। पत्रावली िनयत िदनांक को पेश हो।" 11. A perusal of the summoning order dated 18.05.2022 would reveal that the same is non speaking, unreasoned and even it does not recite the case of the complainant. Less to say about the prima-facie application of the penal provisions. In the case of J.M. Laboratories (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had propounded the law which observed as under: "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."

12. Since the summoning order is cryptic and non-speaking and probably skips and overlooks the crucial aspect of the matter and suffers from the fundamental error, thus, the summoning order dated 18.05.2022 passed by CJM, Etah is set aside and the matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

13. For facilitation, the parties to submit a certified copy of this order by 27.06.2025." 3-A. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that by order dated

5.6.2025, summoning order dated 18.5.2022 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the court concerned to pass a fresh order. Learned counsel for applicant submits that instead of passing fresh order, non bailable warrant has been issued.

4. Learned AGA not disputed the aforesaid fact and submits that the matter may be remitted back to the court concerned and may be directed to comply with the order dated 5.6.2025 passed by this Court.

5. In view of the fact that summoning order dated 18.5.2022 has been set 4 NA528 No. 42128 of 2025 aside by this Court and the matter was remitted back to the court concerned for decision afresh by order dated 5.6.2025 passed in Application U/S 528 BNSS No.19407 of 2025 (Naresh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. and another), it was imperative for the court concerned to have consider the aspect of issuing fresh summoning order and without issuing fresh summoning order, court concerned could not have issued non bailable warrant dated 22.8.2025.

6. In view of above, non bailable warrant dated 22.8.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.1, Etah is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned for compliance of order dated

5.6.2025 passed by this Court.

7. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. November 25, 2025 D. Tamang (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)