Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 284 (HP)

Hansmukh K. Chudga v. State of H. P.

2025-03-05

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. 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 andthe 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 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. 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 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 the 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. 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. 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.