Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal complaint No. 128 dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure P-l) under Sections 3(k)(i), 17,18,29 and 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of Insecticides Rules, 1971 titled State v. M/s. Kals Fertilizers Store & others. Challenge is also to order of summoning (Annexure P-2). 2. The short argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that M/s. Kals Fertilizers Store is a licensed dealer of insecticides. Learned counsel further contends that it is the admitted case of the respondent that the petitioner had stored licensed product. The storage of insecticides, a sample of which was drawn, was proper. 3. Learned counsel states that the insecticides stored by the petitioners had been manufactured by another concern namely M/s. Singhal Pesticides, Jamunapar, Agra. The sample was drawn from a sealed container. 4. Learned counsel has argued that since it is the admitted case that sample was drawn from a sealed container, the sales persons had no occasion to adulterate the insecticide. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Tejinder & others v. State of Punjab, 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 603. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent- State conlends that it would be a disputed question of fact and at this stage while exercisingjurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the complaint and summoning order cannot be quashed. 7. I have considered the contention. 8. The complaint has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. Para 3 of the complaint reads as under:- "3. That the complainant then randomly selected one sealed packet of 5 Kg. of said insecticide (i.e. original packing packed by the said manufacturer), having batch number CH-472, manufacturing date 23-03- 2007 and expiry date 22-03-2009 manufactured by M/s. Singhal Pesticides, Jamunapar. Agra was then opened with a clean and dry blade in front of Atma Singh and Sh. Gurmail Singh." 9. Other than the above, the petitioner has specifically pleaded in ground 7 (i) of the petition that the sample was drawn out of one original sealed and packed container weighing 5 Kg. In response to the said ground, it has been admitted by the respondent-State that the sample was drawn from a sealed packet. 10. Gurmail Singh." 9. Other than the above, the petitioner has specifically pleaded in ground 7 (i) of the petition that the sample was drawn out of one original sealed and packed container weighing 5 Kg. In response to the said ground, it has been admitted by the respondent-State that the sample was drawn from a sealed packet. 10. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that continuance of proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of Court and process of law. The petitioner is not the manufacturer of the insecticide. The sample was drawn from a sealed container. The insecticide was manufactured by another concern (nonpetitioner). Since the packet was sealed, therefore, the petitioner had no occasion or opportunity to adulterate the same. 11. I also find that the matter is covered by Tejinder & others v. State of Punjab, 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 603. 12. In view of the above circumstances, the petition is allowed. 13. Criminal complaint No. 128 dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure P-l) and order of summoning (Annexure P-2)as against the petitioners is hereby quashed.