AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K Jhanji, J.
Present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed for the quashing of the complaint dated 25.3.1992 (Annexure P1) and the summoning order dated 25.3.1992 (Annexure P2) and subsequent proceedings before the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi.
The quashing has been sought on the ground that one of the petitioners, namely, Narendra Nath Malhotra who has been shown in the complaint, being responsible person of the Distributor (Manufacturer) is only a Stenographer and secondly that the petitioners were deprived of their right of reanalysis of the sample from the Central Laboratory. In support of this, the learned counsel has placed reliance on (1) 1992 AIR (SC) 1815 and (2) 1993(2) R.C.R. 533.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out for quashing of the complaint or the order summoning the petitioners. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. High Court has certain limitations in exercising power under the said Section. Proceedings can be quashed only when the Court finds, that the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation; where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbably on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused; where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act to the institution and continuance of the proceedings; or where a criminal proceedings is manifestly attended with mala fide and or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for the wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. For this see Union of India v. B.R. Bajaj and others, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1256 wherein principle laid down in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 was reiterated.
In the present case, reading of the complaint and the report of the Public Analyst discloses prima facie case against the petitioners. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate was justified on the basis of the complaint and the report of the Public Analyst, to summon the petitioners. As to whether the petitioners have a right to get the third sample reanalysed from the Central Laboratory or whether one of the petitioners is a Stenographer and is not a person incharge or responsible for conducting the business of the firm, are matters which can be gone into only during trial and not at the stage when the petitioners have been summoned.
Accordingly, this petition shall stand dismissed. Petitioners shall be at liberty to take all the defences available to them time before the trial Judge.