JUDGMENT : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. These criminal miscellaneous petitions are arising out of common facts and against the same FIR raising identical points, hence, with the consent of the parties, at the stage of deciding application for stay vacation, all the petitions were heard together and are being decided finally by the instant common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts stated in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1599/2019 are being taken into consideration. 3. The criminal misc. petition has been filed with a prayer to quash and set aside FIR No.762/2018 registered with the Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur for the alleged offences under Section 420 , 272 & 336 of IPC as well as Section 58 & 59 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 4. It is contended that the impugned FIR No.762/2018 has been lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Police Station Bayana on 03.09.2018 alleging therein that the accused-petitioners were found to be indulged in the process of adulteration of milk by blending caustic soda and other chemicals in one of the factory situated in RICCO industrial area. It has also been stated in the FIR that during search even the Food Safety Officer, Bharatpur was called, who also took sample of the milk and after sealing the same, the sample was also sent for examination. The FIR has been lodged under Section 420 , 272 & 336 of IPC as well as Section 58 & 59 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the FIR has submitted that FIR is without authority as well as without jurisdiction, as the allegations levelled in the FIR principally deal with alleged adulteration in milk, which is essentially a food product as defined under Section 3 (j) of the Act of 2006. Learned counsel further submits that Section 41 of the Act of 2006 deals with power of search, seizure, investigation, prosecution and procedure thereof and further Section 42 deals with the procedure for launching prosecution. While making such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner indicated that of the Act of 2006 makes it abundantly clear that the sample of alleged adulterated food shall be collected by the Food Safety Officer and the same shall be sent for further analysis to the designated officer within a period of 14 days with a copy to the Commissioner of Food Safety. Thereafter, on the basis of report, designated officer shall scrutinize as to whether any provision of the Act has been contravened or not; and if such contravention is punishable with imprisonment or with fine only, and after making such scrutiny, he shall submit his recommendation within a period of 14 days to the Commission of Food Safety for grant of sanction for prosecution. Learned counsel also submits that thereafter decision shall be taken by the Commissioner of Food Safety, who shall direct the competent authority to launch prosecution before the appropriate Court and such communication shall also be sent to the purchaser, if any. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further indicates that Section 89 of the Act of 2006 confers overriding effect to the provisions of Act of 2006 over any other law for the time being in force in respect of subjects which are included in the Act of 2006. Learned counsel also refers the provisions of Section 4 (2) of Cr.P.C. so as to emphasize that even the provisions of Cr.P.C. makes it absolutely clear that the offences relating to any special law shall be dealt with by the provisions of the Statute dealing with such special law and shall be investigated, enquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with by the provisions of such special law, hence, even otherwise lodging of FIR for the alleged offences, which are otherwise subject matter of provisions of the Act of 2006, is sheer abuse of the process of law and has also been lodged in ignorance of mandatory provisions of the Act of 2006 and the Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that bare perusal of the contents of FIR would not indicate any iota or whisper so as to implicate the petitioner for offence under Section 420 IPC , as there is no allegation either with regard to inducement or undue loss or undue gain on account of such alleged inducement. Learned counsel further submits that so far as Section 272 & 336 are concerned, they are also related to food adulteration and after enactment of the Act of 2006, such provisions of have become otiose and obsolete; and the petitioner cannot be prosecuted under such provisions of after enactment of special law vide Act of 2006. Learned counsel further submits that so far as Section 272 & 336 are concerned, they are also related to food adulteration and after enactment of the Act of 2006, such provisions of have become otiose and obsolete; and the petitioner cannot be prosecuted under such provisions of after enactment of special law vide Act of 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn indulgence of this Court over the report of milk analysis dated 05.09.2018 (annexure-2) in order to show that even the analysis of the sample taken by the authorities at the time of lodging FIR would not indicate any adulteration whatsoever and even if analysis report is taken at it's face value then merely shortfall of prescribed standards in respect of milk fat cannot be termed as adulteration as the report itself makes it clear that the sample collected was not related to mixed milk. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of above, by lodging FIR against the provisions of the Act of 2006 and Cr.P.C., the petitioner has been subjected to vexatious and frivolous prosecution, which is causing a miscarriage of justice to the petitioner, hence, a prayer has been made to quash the FIR. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.472/2012 decided on 21.02.2024 as well as judgments of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shafi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2017(1) FAC 335 and in the case of M/s Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Limited & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2010(2) FAC 270 10. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal miscellaneous petition and submitted that mere enactment of the Act of 2006 would not in itself make the provisions of IPC ineffective and meaningless. Since bare perusal of FIR would reveal that primarily it has been lodged under the provisions of read with the provisions of Act of 2006, therefore, it cannot be said that the police authorities had no jurisdiction to register the FIR. Since bare perusal of FIR would reveal that primarily it has been lodged under the provisions of read with the provisions of Act of 2006, therefore, it cannot be said that the police authorities had no jurisdiction to register the FIR. It is also submitted that as the alleged offences are covered under Section 272 & 336 of relating to adulteration of food and causing a threat to the health of life on general public, which has been committed with an intent to cheat the public at large and therefore, mere inclusion of provisions of the Act of 2006 would not oust the jurisdiction of police authorities to register an FIR in the circumstances, where apparently, a cognizable offence was found to have been committed during the search by police authorities. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that at the time of filing of criminal misc. petition, the FIR was at the initial stage of investigation, hence, it cannot be said that the offences under the provisions of are not made out against the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that even the examination report dated 05.09.2018 (annexure-2) states that the milk sample taken by the Food Safety Officer, shows that the sample contained sub-standard food, hence, provisions of & 336 of are attracted in the instant matter, therefore, FIR has rightly been lodged by the police authorities. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. It is a matter of record that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 was enacted by the Parliament with an object to consolidate the laws relating to food and to establish the Food Safety and Standards Authorities of India for laying down science based standards for articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale, import and to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption and for remarks connected therewith or incidental therein. 13. Section 89 of the Act of 2006 lays down as under:- " Overriding effect of this Act over all other food related laws. - The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act." 14. - The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act." 14. Bare perusal of Section 89 of the Act of 2006 would explicitly reveal that the legislature in its wisdom has given overriding effect to the provisions of the Act of 2006 over any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. 15. Section 3 (j) defines Food as under:- ""food" means any substance, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption and includes primary food, to the extent defined in clause (ZK) genetically modified or engineered food or food containing such ingredients, infant food, packaged drinking water, alcoholic drink, chewing gum, and any substance, including water used into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment but does not include any animal feed, live animals unless they are prepared or processed for placing on the market for human consumption, plants prior to harvesting, drugs and medicinal products, cosmetics, narcotic or psychotropic substances: Provided that the Central Government may declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, any other article as food for the purposes of this Act having regards to its use, nature, substance or quality;" 16. Section 3 (q) deals with the definition of Food Safety in the following manner:- ""food safety" means assurance that food is acceptable for human consumption according to its intended use;" 17. Section 3 (t) defines Food Safety Officer as under:- ""Food Safety Officer" means an officer appointed under Section 37;" 18. Section 3 (u) defines hazard in the following manner:- ""hazard" means a biological, chemical or physical agent in, or condition of, food with the potential to cause an adverse health effect;" 19. Section 3 (t) defines Food Safety Officer as under:- ""Food Safety Officer" means an officer appointed under Section 37;" 18. Section 3 (u) defines hazard in the following manner:- ""hazard" means a biological, chemical or physical agent in, or condition of, food with the potential to cause an adverse health effect;" 19. Section 3 (zc) and 3(zd) deal with the definition of manufacture and manufacturer as under:- ""manufacture" means a process or adoption or any treatment for conversion of ingredients into an article of food, which includes any sub-process, incidental or ancillary to the manufacture of an article of food; "manufacturer" means a person engaged in the business of manufacturing any article of food for sale and includes any person who obtains such article from another person and packs and labels it for sale or only labels it for such purposes;" 20. Section 3 (zs) deals with sample, 3(zu) with standard and 3(zx) with sub-standard in the following manner:- ""sample" means a sample of any article of food taken under the provisions of this Act or any rules and regulations made thereunder; "standard", in relation to any article of food, means the standards notified by the Food Authority; "sub-standard" - an article of food shall be deemed to be sub-standard if it does not meet the specified standards but not so as to render the article of food unsafe;" 21. Section 3 (zz) defines unsafe food which is being quoted hereunder:- ""unsafe food" means an article of food whose nature, substance or quality is so affected as to render it injurious to health: (i) by the article itself, or its package thereof, which is composed, whether wholly or in part, or poisonous or deleterious substances; or (ii) by the article consisting, wholly or in part, or any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal substance or vegetable substance; or (iii) by virtue of its unhygienic processing or the presence in that article of any harmful substance; or (iv) by the substitution of any inferior or cheaper substance whether wholly or in part; or (v) by addition of a substance directly or as an ingredient which is not permitted; or (vi) by the abstraction, wholly or in part, of any of its constituents; or (vii) by the article being so coloured, flavoured or coated, powdered or polished, as to damage or conceal the article or to make it appear better or of greater value than it really is; or (viii) by the presence of any colouring matter or preservatives other than that specified in respect thereof; or (ix) by the article having been infected or infested with worms, weevils or insects; or (x) by virtue of its being prepared, packed or kept under insanitary conditions; or (xi) by virtue of its being mis-branded or sub- standard or food containing extraneous matter; or (xii) by virtue of containing pesticides and other contaminants in excess of quantities specified by regulations." 22. Section 41 & 42 of the Act of 2006 are also relevant and are being quoted hereunder:- " 41. Power of search, seizure, investigation, prosecution and procedure thereof. –(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 31, the Food Safety Officer may search any place, seize any article of food or adulterant, if there is a reasonable doubt about them being involved in commission of any offence relating to food and shall thereafter inform the Designated Officer of the actions taken by him in writing: Provided that no search shall be deemed to be irregular by reason only of the fact that witnesses for the search are not inhabitants of the locality in which the place searched is situated. (2) Save as in this Act otherwise expressly provided, provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) relating to search, seizure, summon, investigation and prosecution, shall apply, as far as may be, to all action taken by the Food Safety Officer under this Act. 42. Procedure for launching prosecution. –(1) The Food Safety Officer shall be responsible for inspection of food business, drawing samples and sending them to Food Analyst for analysis. (2) The Food Analyst after receiving the sample from the Food Safety Officer shall analyse the sample and send the analysis report mentioning method of sampling and analysis within fourteen days to Designated Officer with a copy to Commissioner of Food Safety. (3) The Designated Officer after scrutiny of the report of Food Analyst shall decide as to whether the contravention is punishable with imprisonment or fine only and in the case of contravention punishable with imprisonment, he shall send his recommendations within fourteen days to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution. (4) The Commissioner of Food Safety shall, if he so deems fit, decide, within the period prescribed by the Central Government, as per the gravity of offence, whether the matter be referred to,– (a) a court of ordinary jurisdiction in case of offences punishable with imprisonment for a term up to three years; or (b) a Special Court in case of offences punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years where such Special Court is established and in case no Special Court is established, such cases shall be tried by a Court of ordinary jurisdiction. (5) The Commissioner of Food Safety shall communicate his decision to the Designated Officer and the concerned Food Safety Officer who shall launch prosecution before courts of ordinary jurisdiction or Special Court, as the case may be; and such communication shall also be sent to the purchaser if the sample was taken under section 40." 23. Sections 58 & 59 deal with contravention and punishment, where the provisions are violated; and are being reproduced hereunder:- " 58. Penalty for contraventions for which no specific penalty is provided. –Whoever contravenes any provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder, for the contravention of which no penalty has been separately provided in this Chapter, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to two lakh rupees. 59. Punishment for unsafe food. Penalty for contraventions for which no specific penalty is provided. –Whoever contravenes any provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder, for the contravention of which no penalty has been separately provided in this Chapter, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to two lakh rupees. 59. Punishment for unsafe food. –Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe, shall be punishable,– (i) where such failure or contravention does not result in injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; (ii) where such failure or contravention results in a non-grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also with fine which may extend to three lakh rupees; (iii) where such failure or contravention results in a grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years and also with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees; (iv) where such failure or contravention results in death, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and also with fine which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees." 24. Thus, bare reading of the aforesaid provisions would make it clear that the Central Government has enacted the Act of 2006 with the sole objective to bring out a single enactment relating to food and to provide for systematic and scientific development for food processing industry as well as for sampling and analysing of food products and to ensure the compliance of law. Even the procedure for prosecution and penalties has been given in the Act of 2006. 25. Conjoint readings of all the provisions would make it clear that the Act of 2006 is a self-contained code and special legislation for dealing with food laws, standard setting, enforcement agencies, parameters of food standards as well as the penalty and procedure. 26. Even the procedure for prosecution and penalties has been given in the Act of 2006. 25. Conjoint readings of all the provisions would make it clear that the Act of 2006 is a self-contained code and special legislation for dealing with food laws, standard setting, enforcement agencies, parameters of food standards as well as the penalty and procedure. 26. Section 41 of the Act starts with non-obstante clause and provides for the mode and manner of search, seizure, investigation, prosecution and Section 42 of the Act is explicitly clear, which deals with the meticulous procedure for the purpose of launch of prosecution against the person who has violated the provisions of the Act of 2006. 27. Provisions of Section 42 are unambiguous and would make it abundantly clear that the sample collected during search by the Food Safety Officer shall be sent for analysis to the prescribed authority and on the basis of report of analysis recommendation shall be made by the designated officer defined under Section 3 (h) of the Act of 2006. The recommendation of the designated officer shall be considered by the Commissioner of Food Safety appointed under Section 30 of the Act of 2006 and after consideration, a decision shall be taken by him to launch prosecution before Court of ordinary jurisdiction or special Court as the case may be. In the instant case, the impugned FIR has been registered under the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C., which could not have been lodged in the light of the provision of Section 4 (2) of Cr.P.C. as well as read with Section 89 of the Act of 2006. This Court has also examined the provisions of Section 272 IPC which solely deals with the adulteration of food or drink intended for sale; and such subject is indisputably covered by the provisions of the Act of 2006. Inclusion of Section 336 in FIR is simply consequential to the alleged violation of in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not constitute any independent offence whatsoever. 28. Contents of FIR also do not involve the essential and necessary ingredients of Section 415 IPC which defines cheating, hence, in absence of any specific allegation of inducement as well as undue gain/undue loss on the basis of such inducement, lodging an FIR under Section 420 is not tenable. 29. 28. Contents of FIR also do not involve the essential and necessary ingredients of Section 415 IPC which defines cheating, hence, in absence of any specific allegation of inducement as well as undue gain/undue loss on the basis of such inducement, lodging an FIR under Section 420 is not tenable. 29. In the case of M/s Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Limited (supra), the Allahabad High Court was dealing with the similar facts, where allegations were with regard to adulteration in cold drinks and FIR was also lodged under Section 272 & 273 IPC . In the said judgment, the Allahabad High Court has held that the provisions of the Act of 2006 would have an overriding effect on other food laws including the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as well as . 30. The aforesaid judgment has also been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath (supra) where after dealing with the definition of unsafe food, sub- standard, adulterant as well as Sections 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 & 58 and other penalties prescribed in the Act of 2006 and after comparing the same with the provisions of IPC , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has concluded as under:- " 20. Thus, there are very exhaustive substantive and procedural provisions in the FSSA for dealing with offences concerning unsafe food. In this context, we must consider the effect of Section 89 of the FSSA. reads thus: “89. Overriding effect of this Act over all other food related laws.—The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect of virtue of any law other than this Act.” The title of the section indeed indicates that the intention is to give an overriding effect to the FSSA over all ‘foodrelated laws’. However, in the main Section, there is no such restriction confined to ‘food-related laws’, and it is provided that provisions of the FSSA shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. So, the Section indicates that an overriding effect is given to the provisions of the FSSA over any other law. So, the Section indicates that an overriding effect is given to the provisions of the FSSA over any other law. The settled law is that if the main Section is unambiguous, the aid of the title of the Section or its marginal note cannot be taken to interpret the same. Only if it is ambiguous, the title of the section or the marginal note can be looked into to understand the intention of the legislature. Therefore, the main Section clearly gives overriding effect to the provisions of the FSSA over any other law in so far as the law applies to the aspects of food in the field covered by the FSSA. In this case, we are concerned only with Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC . When the offences under Section 272 and 273 of the are made out, even the offence under Section 59 of the FSSA will be attracted. In fact, the offence under of the FSSA is more stringent. 21. The decision of this Court in Swami Achyutanand Tirth does not deal with this contingency at all. In the case of the State of Maharashtra , the question of the effect of Section 97 FSSA did not arise for consideration of this Court. The Court dealt with simultaneous prosecutions and concluded that there could be simultaneous prosecutions, but conviction and sentence can be only in one. This proposition is based on what is incorporated in Section 26 of the GC Act. We have no manner of doubt that by virtue of Section 89 FSSA, Section 59 will override the provisions of Sections 272 and 273IPC. Therefore, there will not be any question of simultaneous prosecution under both the statutes. 22. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2012, Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1379 of 2011 succeed, and we set aside the impugned orders. The offences, subject-matter of these appeals, are hereby quashed and set aside with liberty to the authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law if not already initiated. Therefore, the authorities concerned are free to act in accordance with FSSA for offences punishable under Section 59 FSSA. Criminal Appeals Nos. 476-478 of 2012 are dismissed." 31. The offences, subject-matter of these appeals, are hereby quashed and set aside with liberty to the authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law if not already initiated. Therefore, the authorities concerned are free to act in accordance with FSSA for offences punishable under Section 59 FSSA. Criminal Appeals Nos. 476-478 of 2012 are dismissed." 31. Meticulous reading of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath (supra) fortifies the legal proposition that provisions of Section 89 of the Act of 2006 have overriding effect over the provisions of Section 272 & 273 IPC in so far as the law of agency of food in the field covered by the Act of 2006. In view of the express non-obstante clause embodied in of the Act, it is evident that matters relating to offences of adulteration, misbranding, or sub-standard food, the field stands occupied by the Act of 2006. Consequently, once the alleged act falls within the ambit of the Act of 2006, prosecution under the general provisions of would be impermissible. 32. In the light of foregoing discussion, it is absolutely clear that the respondent- police authorities have committed serious error of law and jurisdiction by invoking the provisions of IPC and Cr.P.C. for lodging FIR in the instant case. The matter squarely falls within the regulatory and penal framework of the Act of 2006, which provides a complete and exclusive mechanism for initiation of prosecution through the Designated Officer and Food Safety Commissioner under Section 41 & 42 of the Act. The registration of the FIR by the Police, therefore, not only reflects lack of jurisdiction but also contravenes the mandate of Section 89 of the Act. Such FIR, which is directly against the provisions of the Act of 2006, more particularly when even the analysis report of the safety and standard report dated 05.09.2018 does not suggest any adulteration so as to constitute offence under the Act of 2006, hence, prosecution pursuant to such FIR would certainly amount to miscarriage of justice to the petitioner as well as abuse of process of law. 33. Hence, this Court deems it just and proper to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and consequently quash and set aside FIR No.762/2018 registered with the Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur. Accordingly, the instant criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed. 34. 33. Hence, this Court deems it just and proper to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and consequently quash and set aside FIR No.762/2018 registered with the Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur. Accordingly, the instant criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed. 34. Office is directed to keep copy of this judgment in each other connected file.