M/S Tata Chemicals Ltd v. State of Haryana

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the Complaint Case No.132-II dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure P-7) titled as  'The State of Haryana through Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer-cum-Fertilizer Inspector, Tohana through Sh. Baljeet Singh Sub Divisional Agri. Officer Tohana Versus Sh. Radhey Sham & others' registered under   Section   7   of   the   Essential   Commodities   Act,   1955   for   the contravention of Clause 19(1) (a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, the summoning order dated 30.09.2015 (Annexure P-8) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶2The brief facts of the case are that Baljeet Singh, Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer-cum-Fertilizer Inspector Tohana on 18.11.2014 in the presence of Sh. Radhey Sham, Proprietor of M/s Kewal Fertilizers 50-Anaj Mandi Jakhal Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad checked the fertilizer stock

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -2-of the firm and found that 4 Kgs x 85 packets of Zinc Sulphate Monohydrate 33% was lying in balance in the said premises on 18.11.2014. The samples of the same were taken for the purposes of a quality check. The same were sent for analysis and as per the report of the Analytical Chemist Quality Control Lab (Fertilizer) Hisar, the sample test result showed Zinc contents to be

29.87% as against 33% and thus, the analysis report showed that the sample was not according to the specifications and had failed in Zinc contents. A show cause notice was served by the Fertilizer Inspector-cum-Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Tohana to M/s Kewal Fertilizers 50-Anaj Mandi Jakhal Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad for violation of Clause 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and a copy of the analysis report was also supplied. Show cause notices were also sent to the manufacturing company i.e. M/s Chakradhar Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. E-3, UPSIDC, Industrial Area Begarjpur   Muzaffarnagar  and   marketing  company   M/s  Tata   Chemicals Limited, Regd. Office Bombay House-24, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai and replies were submitted by M/s Kewal Fertilizers 50-Anaj Mandi Jakhal Tehsil Tohana,   District   Fatehabad,   M/s   Chakradhar   Chemicals   Pvt.   Ltd.   E-3, UPSIDC, Industrial Area Begarjpur Muzaffarnagar and M/s Tata Chemicals Limited, Regd. Office Bombay House-24, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai. The Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Tohana also called upon the dealer, manufacturing company and marketing company to appear personally and to explain the matter regarding failure of the sample.  The dealer, manufacturer and marketing company failed to avail the opportunity of re-analysis of the sample provided to them under Clause 32-A of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985.

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -3-

¶3Shri Radhey Sham being the Proprietor of M/s Kewal Fertilizers 50-Anaj Mandi Jakhal Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad which was the stockist/dealer of the pesticides had violated the provisions of Clause 19(1)

(a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. M/s Chakradhar Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. E-3, UPSIDC, Industrial Area Begarjpur Muzaffarnagar was liable being the manufacturing company. Similarly, M/s Tata Chemicals Limited, Regd. Office Bombay House-24, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai (petitioner) was liable being the marketing company. Since the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 had been issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which is punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 all the accused had violated the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶4Based   upon   the   aforementioned   allegations,   the   complaint (Annexure  P-7)  was   instituted   under  Clause  19(1)(a)  of  the  Fertilizer (Control)   Order,   1985   punishable   under   Section   7   of   the   Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which led to the consequential summoning order dated 30.09.2015 (Annexure P-8).

¶5The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was the marketing company. It could not in any manner be responsible for the sub-standard fertilizer contained in the bag from which a sample had been taken. There was no allegation that the bags had been tampered with when the samples were taken from the premises of M/s Kewal Fertilizers 50-Anaj Mandi Jakhal Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad. Therefore, the liability, if any, only lay with the manufacturer M/s Chakradhar Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -4-8eliance is placed on the judg&ents of this $ourt in the cases of Manoj Grover Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-4582-2008, decided on 15 12 200!, "e#ar Sin$# Versus State of Punjab and anot#er,  CRM-M-8021-2010, decided on 15 0! 2011, G#anvir Sin$# Versus State of Punjab % anot#er, CRM-M-28&2'-2010, decided on '0 0& 2012 and M(s )ata C#e*ica+s ,td %  anot#er  Versus  State of  Punjab,  CRM-M-1412'-201-, decided  on 1! 04 2024. D. 6n the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the petitioner ;hich ;as the &ar=eting co&pan  ;as e%uall  responsible for the %ualit  of pesticides ;hich it had &ar=eted and a sa&ple of ;hich had been ta=en fro& the stoc=ist9seller na&el , M9s :e;al 4ertili5ers .,*Anaj Mandi <a=hal Tehsil Tohana, 7istrict 4atehabad. Therefore, as the offence ;as prima facie established, no case for %uashing of the co&plaint /Annetiur P*-1 and Su&&oning order dated ),.,3.#,(. /Annetiure P*"1 ;as &ade out. -. + have heard the learned counsel for the parties. ". +n  Manoj Grover /supra1, it ;as held as under:* "Thus, even from the perusal of the F.I.R., no offence under Section 7(1) (a) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is made out qua the petitioner, who is only a dealer and is not responsible for the sub-standard fertilizer in the bag lying in his custody duly stitched and then sealed and which was ordered from Indian Potash Company Limited, Ludhiana, who had further actually received the DAP from M/s Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers, Misadia, Village Orissa. As such, nowhere either the Government Agency Indian Potash Limited or the petitioner's firm M/s Deepak Fertilizers and Chemicals, Amloh or M/s Guru Nanak Khad Store, Fatehgarh Sahib are actual manufacturers of the said DAP

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -5- (Oswal) which was recovered by the complainant. There is no allegation that the stitched bags were tampered with. Thus, the non-compliance of the sub-standard, if at all, can only be attributed to the manufacturer M/s Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers, Misadia, Village Orissa and not to either the M/s Deepak Fertilizers and Chemicals or the Chief Manager, Indian Potash Company Limited. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the F.I.R. No.114 dated 10.09.2005 registered under Sections 7(1)(a) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, 19(1)(a) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 at Police Station Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib qua the present petitioner in Crl. Misc. No.M-4582 of 2008 and the petitioner in Crl. Misc. No.M-12668 of 2008 is, accordingly, quashed. /e&phasis supplied1 +n  "e#ar Sin$# /supra1, it ;as held as under:* The plea&ings *hich are not in &ispute an&) has been referre& to above  clearly in&icates that the samples *hich *ere &ra*n from the bags *ere ta+en   from   the   stitche&   bags!   Form   ,   *hich   is re-uire& to be issue& at the time *hen the sample is ta+en *herein signatures of not only Authorize& Authority un&er the Fertilizer .ontrol Or&er /012 is put but also that of the &ealer3manufacturer as also the fertilizer inspector  there is no mention in the sai& form that there *as either any tampering *ith the bags or that the pac+aging of the bags *as not as per rules an& regulations! 4hat has been state& merely is that the bags *ere stitche&! If any

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -6-irregularity or discrepancy had been found by the raiding party, the same would have found mention in   Form   J   but   there   is   none.   The   additional presumptions which the counsel for the State intend to draw during arguments cannot be accepted. In case the samples were drawn from the stitched bags wherein no irregularity or discrepancy was found therein, the dealers cannot be held liable and it is only the manufacturer who has to respond to the sample   having   failed   or   did   not   fulfill   the specifications   required.   In   the   absence   of   any evidence on record, or the statement to the effect that the petitioners were in any manner associated in the manufacture of the fertilizer contained in the bags, they cannot be held liable for the contents of the fertilizer. Counsel for the respondents could not point out any provision of the Act or the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and or any Regulations, Rules or instructions framed/issued under these, which have been violated or would bring the petitioners within the ambit of the offences alleged to have been committed by them for which the FIR and or the complaint was filed against them by the respondents. It would not be out of way to mention that purchase receipts   and   vouchers   have   been   placed   on   record, authenticity of which is not challenged by the respondents, showing that they have purchased the fertilizer in the form of bags.   Further   as   per   the   instructions   issued   by   the Government of India on 14.5.2004, Annexure P10, clause L thereof clearly holds that in case of any contravention or

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -7-declaration of fertilizer to be sub standard, the responsibility is of the manufacturer alone. This would obviously mean that apart from the manufacturer and the Department of Fertilizer,   others   cannot   be   held   liable,   however,   this sweeping statement cannot be made applicable to all cases as it would depend upon facts of each case. In the present case, there is no such assertion with regard to tampering with the packing or manhandling, non proper storage etc. of the fertilizer or the bags by the petitioners   and   therefore,   in   the   above   facts   and circumstances, it cannot be said that an offence is prima facie made out against the petitioners or they had violated any provision of the Act Read with the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. My this opinion is further strengthened by an earlier judgment of this Court in Manoj Grover's case (supra) wherein the same opinion has been expressed by this Court on virtually same facts. In   view   of   the   above,   the   present   petitions   are allowed.   The   impugned   FIRs   /complaints   are   hereby quashed alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom   qua   the   petitioners   alone,   who   are   neither manufacturers   or   the   officers   or   employees   of   the manufacturer and are in no manner associated with the manufacturing process." (emphasis supplied) In  Ghanvir Singh (supra), it was held as under:- "A perusal of the criminal complaints reveals that the   petitioners   are   either   the   marketers   or importers of the fertilizers stated to be found "non-standard".   It   is   also   recorded   in   the   J   Forms, issued at the time of drawl of the samples, that the bags/ packets of the  fertilizers were found to be stitched and sealed when samples were drawn from

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -8-them.   In   the   J   Forms   there   is   no   mention   of tampering with the stitching or seals or any other irregularity or discrepancy. It is also not the case of   the   respondents   that   the   petitioners   were manufacturers or employees of the manufacturers of   the   fertilizers   or   were   associated   with   the manufacture of the fertilizers in any manner. There is   no   such   plea   in   the   complaints   also.   In   the situation,   in   my   humble   opinion,   not   the petitioners, but the manufacturers may be liable to respond   to   the   deficiency,   if   any,   found   in   the samples of the fertilizers. Section 7 of the Act runs as under: "7. PENALTIES.   (1)   If   any   person   contravenes any   order   made   under   Sec.   3,   -   (a)   he   shall  be punishable, - (i) in the case of an order made with reference to Cl.(h) or Cl.(i) of sub-section (2) of that section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine, and

(ii)   in   the   case   of   any   other   order,   with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine; Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months;

(b) any property in respect of which the order has been   contravened   shall   be   forfeited   to   the Government;

(c) any packing, covering or receptacle in which the   property   is   found   and   any   animal,   vehicle, vessel   or   other   conveyance   used   in   carrying   the

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -9-property shall, if the Court so orders, be forfeited to the Government.

(2)   If   any   person   to   whom   a   direction   is   given under Cl. (b) of sub-section (4) of Sec. 3 fails to comply with the direction, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less   than   three   months   but  which   may  extend   to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months. (2-A) If any person convicted of an offence under sub-   clause(ii)   of   Cl.   (a)   of   sub-section   (1)   or under   subsection   (2)   is   again   convicted   of   an offence   under   the   same   provision,   he   shall   be punishable with imprisonment for the second and for every subsequent offence for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.

(2B) For the purposes of sub-sections (1), (2) and

(2A), the fact that an offence under sub-clause (ii) of   clause   (a)   of   sub-section   (1)   or   under   sub-section (2) has caused no substantial harm to the general public or to any individual, shall be an adequate   and   special   reason   for   awarding   a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months, or six months, as the case may be.

(3) Where a person having been convicted of an offence under sub-section (1) is again convicted of an offence under that sub-section for contravention of an order in respect of an essential commodity,

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -10-the Court by which such person is convicted shall, in addition to any penalty which may be imposed on him under that sub-section, by order, direct that person   shall   not   carry   on   any   business   in   that essential commodity for such period, not being less than six months, as may be specified by the Court in the order." The   petitioners   are   alleged   to   have   contravened Regulation 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer Order. Regulation 19 reads as under: "19. Restriction   on   manufacture/   import,   sale   and distribution of fertilizers No person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf:- manufacture/import   for   sale,   sell,   offer   for   sale,   stock   or exhibit for sale or  distribute any fertlliser which Is not of prescribed standard; manufacture/Import   for   sale,   sell,   offer   for   sale,   stock   or exhibit for sale, or distribute any mixture of fertl11sers, which is   not   of   prescribed   standard**   (subject   to   such   limits   of permissible variation as may be specified from time to time by the   Central   Government)   or   special   mixture   of   fertilisers which does  not conform  to  the  particulars  specified  In  the certificate of manufacture granted to him under this Order in respect of such special mixture. sell, offer for sale, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute:- any   fertiliser   the   container   whereof   is   not   packed   and marked in the manner laid down In this Order any fertiliser which is an [imitation of or] a substitute for another fertiliser under the name of which It Is sold; any fertiliser which Is adulterated; Explanation:-  A  fertiliser   shall  be   deemed   to   be adulterated, If   It   contains   any   substance   the

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -11-addition of which is likely to eliminate or decrease Its   nutrient   contents   or   make   the   fertiliser   not conforming to the prescribed standard. any fertiliser the label or container whereof bears the name of   any   individual   firm   or   company   purporting   to   be manufacturer/ Importer of the fertiliser, which individual, firm or company Is fictitious or does not exist. any   fertiliser,   the   label   or   container   whereof   or   anything accompanying therewith bears any statement which makes a false claim for the fertiliser of which s false or misleading in any material particular. any substance as a fertiliser which substance is not, in fact, a fertiliser; or any   fertilizer   without   exhibiting   the   minimum   guaranteed percentage by weight ofplant nutrient." Regulation   19   of   the   Fertilizer   Order   was considered and struck down by this court in Tarsem Singh   versus   Union   of   India,   (1997)   115PLR34, while observing as under: "12. Summing   up   Regulation   19   of   the impugned Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 is a piece   of   unfair   legislation.   It  has   given   an arbitrary   power,   to   the   Government   to prosecute   a   person,   who   cannot   show   in   a Court  of  Law that  the  report  of  the  Public Analyst who has declared the sample of the fertiliser   as   'substandard',   could   possibly fall   in   an   error   leading   to   his   conclusions while testing the sample. It has also snatched a valuable right of a person who deals in the trade   of   fertilizer   and   sells   the   sealed   and stitched   bags   as   supplied   to   him   by   the manufacturer. Even this piece of legislation

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -12-has   made   such   dealer   punishable   who   has properly stored the essential commodities as such   'fertilizer'.   I   am   of   the   opinion   that Regulation   19   of   the   impugned   Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 is violative of Article 19 read   with  Article   21   of   the   Constitution   of India   and   in   its   present   shape   cannot   be allowed   to   operate/stand   and   as   such Regulation 19 of the Control Order is hereby struck   down.   Thus   the   first   proposition   is answered in the affirmative.

¶13The   second   proposition   propounded above can also be answered with ease. When the   foundation   of   the   prosecution   is   based upon   a   piece   of   legislation,   which   has   not been   able   to   stand   the   test  of   scrutiny,   all prosecutions   launched   by   the   authorities under Regulation 19 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act are bound to be quashed and it is ordered accordingly." In State of Punjab versus Jagdish Chand and another, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) the accused was acquitted by the learned trial court, inter alia, on the ground that there was no evidence to show that he was manufacturer of the cattle feed which was found to be not as per specifications and this court refused to interfere with the findings of acquittal. In   Arun   Kumar   and   others   versus   State   of Punjab,   1995   (3)   RCR   (Criminal)   231,   the appellants were partners of firm M/s Mangat Ram &   Sons,   Faridkot.   On   27.6.1984   the   Chief Agricultural   Officer   visited   the   shop   of   the appellants and found that they were in possession of   273   bags   of   NFL   fertilizer.   The   Chief

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -13-Agricultural Office took a sample of the fertilizer from   a   bag   and   sent   it   to   the   laboratory   for analysis.   The  Analyst  found  that  the   sample  was deficient   in   respect   of   Nitrogen   and   Amonical Nitrogen and therefore, a case was registered as FIR   No.   135   dated   8.11.1984,   Police   Station, Kotwali Faridkot under Section 7 of the Act and after trial, Special Court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. In appeal, this court observed as under: "2. There   is   no   dispute   that   the   Chief Agricultural Officer who has been examined as PW.l visited the shop of the appellants on

27.6.1984   and   took   the   sample   of   the fertilizer. The case of the prosecution is that the fertilizer is substandard and it does not contain   the   total   Nitrogen   and   Amonical Nitrogen as prescribed standard. The report of   the   Analytical   Chemist   in   the   Fertilizer Control   Laboratory   in   Punjab   Agricultural University,   Ludhiana   was   marked   Ext.   PC. According to PW. 6, the Analytical Chemist who examined the sample, the total Nitrogen was   24.5%   against   25%   and   Amonical Nitrogen contents were 11.5% against 12.5%. Thus,  there  is   a  variation   of   0.5%   in   total Nitrogen and 1% in Amonical Nitrogen. The said   variation   appears   to   be   negligible. According to PW.6 the tolerable variation is

0.3 unit whereas the variation was only 0.5 unit and PW.6 has not given the permissible limit of the variation in respect of Amonical Nitrogen.   Thus   the   variation   appears   to   be negligible. Apart from that, the fertilizer was purchased admittedly by the appellants from

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -14-Nangal   Fertilizer   Ltd.,   Nangal.   It   is   not disputed   that  to   prove   this   fact  DW.   1   has been examined, who was working as Accounts Officer at the relevant time with the National Fertilizers   Ltd.,   Nangal.   His   evidence   also shows that the fertilizer had been purchased by   the   appellants   from   National   Fertilizers Ltd.,   Nangal.   The   evidence   of   DW.1   also further   shows   that   if   there   is   any manufacturing defect, the responsibility lies on the National Fertilizers Ltd, Nangal as the bags   are   stitched   with   automatic   machines. Farther,  the evidence of PW.2 who  was the Enforcement Inspector, who was also present at the time of taking sample from the shop of the appellants, also deposed that the bags of fertilizers   found   in   possession   of   the appellants, were machine stitched. Therefore, it is clear that the bags of fertilizer, found by the Chief Agricultural Officer and his party had been received by the appellants in their original form without any inter meddling or tampering.  If  this is  the  case, it cannot be said   that   the   accused   had   any   culpable mental   state   for   committing   any   offence either   under   Section   7   of   the   Essential Commodities Act or under the provisions of Fertilizers   Control   Order.  If   there   is   any defect, in the manufacturing process and the bags were intact as supplied by the National Fertilizers   Ltd.   to   the   appellants   shop,   it cannot   be   said   that   the   accused   were responsible   for   any   substandard   in   the fertilizer. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to have   an   order   of   acquittal   in   their   favour.

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -15-Accordingly, I allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Presiding   Officer,   Special   Court,   Faridkot. The   accused   is   accordingly   acquitted.   The amount   of   fine,   if   paid,   is   directed   to   be refunded   to   the   appellants."   (Emphasis supplied) To the similar effect are the orders cited on behalf   of   the   petitioners   and   nothing   to   the contrary   could   be   shown   on   behalf   of   the respondents/States during the course of hearing. In   view   of   the   above,   no   case   is   made   out against   the   petitioners   and   continuation   of   the proceedings against them, in my considered view, shall be an abuse of the process of the court. It is well established that in the proceedings instituted on   complaint,   exercise   of   the   inherent   powers under Section 482, CrPC, to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does   not   disclose   any   offence   or   is   frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which   cognizance   has   been   taken   by   the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482, CrPC. To   hold   that   a   Criminal   Complaint   can   be quashed only if it does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the  Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Awadh Kishore Gupta, (2004) 1 SCC 691, ruled as under:

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -16- "...The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent   power   should   not   be   exercised   to stifle   a   legitimate   prosecution.   High   Court being   the   highest   Court   of   a   State   should normally   refrain   from   giving   a   prima   facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete   and   hazy,   more   so   when   the evidence has not been collected and produced before   the   Court   and   the   issues   involved, whether   factual   or   legal,   are   of   magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without   sufficient   material.   Of   course,   no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding   at   any   stage.   It   would   not   be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of   the   complainant   in   the   light   of   all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises,   arrive   at   a   conclusion   that   the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude   that   the   complaint   cannot   be proceeded with. In proceeding  instituted  on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any   offence   or   is   frivolous,   vexatious   or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint   do   not   constitute   the   offence   of

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -17-which   cognizance   has   been   taken   by   the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash   the   same   in   exercise   of   the   inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code... " Enumerating   the   principles   governing invocation of the provisions of Section 482 of the   Code,   Hon'ble   the   Supreme   Court   in Indian Oil Corpn. V. NEPC India Ltd. ,(2006) 6 SCC 736, (at page 747) ruled as under: "12.   The   principles   relating   to   exercise   of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal   proceedings   have   been   stated   and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To   mention   a   few—Madhavrao   Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Rupan Deol Bajaj   v.   Kanwar   Pal   Singh   Gill,   Central Bureau   of   Investigation   v.   Duncans   Agro Industries   Ltd.,   State   of   Bihar   v.   Rajendra Agrawalla,   Rajesh   Bajaj   v.   State   NCT   of Delhi, Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v.   Mohd.   Sharaful   Haque..   The   principles, relevant to our purpose are:

(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations   made   in   the   complaint,   even   if they   are   taken   at   their   face   value   and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged   against   the   accused.   For   this

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -18-purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the   allegations.   Neither   a   detailed   inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an   assessment   of   the   reliability   or genuineness   of   the   allegations   in   the complaint,   is   warranted   while   examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking   vengeance   or   to   cause   harm,   or where   the   allegations   are   absurd   and inherently improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be   used   to   stifle   or   scuttle   a   legitimate prosecution.   The   power   should   be   used sparingly and with abundant caution.

(iv) The complaint   is   not   required   to verbatim  reproduce   the   legal  ingredients   of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the  ground  that  a  few ingredients  have  not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. ?uashing of the complaint is warranted   only   where   the   complaint   is   so bereft   of   even   the   basic   facts   which   are absolutely   necessary   for   making   out   the offence.

(v) A given  set of  facts  may make  out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence;   or   (c)   a   civil   wrong   as   also   a criminal   offence.   A   commercial   transaction or   a   contractual   dispute,   apart   from furnishing   a   cause   of   action   for   seeking

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -19-remedy   in   civil   law,   may   also   involve   a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of   contract,   for   which   a   civil   remedy   is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The   test   is   whether   the   allegations   in   the complaint   disclose   a   criminal   offence   or not." Similarly in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others,   (2009)  1   SCC   516,   it   has   been   held   as under: "15. Propositions   of   law  which   emerge   from   the said decisions are:

(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its   inherent   jurisdiction   to   quash   a   criminal proceeding and, in particular, a First Information Report   unless   the   allegations   contained   therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.

(2) For   the   said   purpose,   the   Court,   save   and except   in   very   exceptional   circumstances,   would not   look   to   any   document   relied   upon   by   the defence.

(3) Such   a   power   should   be   exercised   very sparingly.   If   the   allegations   made   in   the   FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not   go   beyond   the   same   and   pass   an   order   in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.

(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -20-criminal   proceedings   should   not   be   allowed   to continue.

¶16It is furthermore well known that no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Each case has to be considered   on   its   own   merits.   The   Court,   while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, although would not interfere with a genuine complaint keeping in view   the   purport   and   object   for   which   the provisions of Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal   Procedure   had   been   introduced   by Parliament but would not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction   in   appropriate   cases.   One   of   the paramount duties of the superior courts is to see that  a   person   who   is  apparently   innocent  is   not subjected   to   persecution   and   humiliation   on   the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint." In   Shakson   Belthissor  V.   State   of   Kerala  & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2004, decided on July 06, 2009 the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated as under: "The   scope   and   power   of   quashing   a   first information report and charge sheet under Section 482 of the CrPC is well settled. The said power is exercised   by   the   court   to   prevent   abuse   of   the process of law and court but such a power could be exercised   only   when   the   complaint   filed   by   the complainant or the charge sheet filed by the police did   not   disclose   any   offence   or   when   the   said complaint  is   found   to   be   frivolous,   vexatious   or oppressive.   A   number   of   decisions   have   been rendered   by   this   Court   on   the   aforesaid   issue wherein   the   law   relating   to   quashing   of   a complaint has been succinctly laid down."

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -21-In C.P. Subhash v. Inspector of Police Chennai & Ors.,  Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1962 of 2011), decided on January 23, 2013, Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view: "7.   The   legal  position   regarding   the   exercise   of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court in   relation   to   pending   criminal   proceedings including   FIRs  under   investigation  is   fairly   well settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. Suffice it to say that in cases where the complaint lodged by the complainant whether before a Court or   before   the   jurisdictional  police   station   makes out the commission of an offence, the High Court would not in the ordinary course invoke its powers to   quash   such   proceedings   except   in   rare   and compelling   circumstances   enumerated   in   the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335." As   regards   quashing   of   the   process   issued   by   a Magistrate,   in   Nagawwa   v.   Veeranna   Shivalingappa Konjalgi,   (1976)   3   SCC   736,   it   was   held   that   the Magistrate   while   issuing   process   against   the   accused should satisfy himself as to whether the allegations made in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in the conviction of the accused. It was held that the order of Magistrate for issuing process against the accused could be quashed under the following circumstances: "(1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or   the   statements   of   the   witnesses   recorded   in support of the same taken   at   their   face   value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the   complaint   does   not   disclose   the   essential

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -22-ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;

(2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that   there   is   sufficient   ground   for   proceeding against the accused;

(3) Where   the   discretion   exercised   by   the Magistrate   in   issuing   process   is   capricious   and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or   on   materials   which   are   wholly   irrelevant   or inadmissible; and

(4) Where   the   complaint   suffers   from fundamental   legal   defects,   such   as,   want   of sanction,   or   absence   of   a   complaint   by   legally competent   authority   and   the   like.   The   cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient   guidelines   to   indicate   contingencies where the High Court can quash proceedings." In the consequence, I accept the petitions, quash Criminal   Complaint   No.   17   of   02.02.2012,   "State   of Haryana   versus   M/s.   Pardhan   Khad   Bhandar,   Bapoli, Panipat   etc."  And   order   dated   02.02.2012,   passed   by learned   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate,   Panipat   therein; Criminal  Complaint   No.   172   of   06.04.2012,   "State   of Haryana versus Shri Sushil Kumar etc." And order dated

06.02.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind   therein,   Criminal   Complaint   No.   234-2   of

06.10.2010, "State of Haryana versus M/s. Namberdar Pesticides   and   Fertilizers   etc."   And   order   dated

06.10.2010,   passed   by   learned   Chief   Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur therein; Criminal Complaint No. 417 of 12.11.2008, "State of Haryana versus M/s. Mor Khad Bhandar etc." And order dated 12.11. 2008, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat therein;

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -23-and Criminal Complaint No. 459 of 02.11.2011, "State of Haryana   versus   Shri   Lachhman   Dass   Garg   etc."   And order   dated   02.11.2011,   passed   by   learned   Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tohana therein, qua the petitioners only and discharge the petitioners from the proceedings. (emphasis supplied) In Tata Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it was held as under:- "9. A perusal of the impugned criminal complaint would reveal that the petitioners are the marketing company and the Regional Manager of the same. Admittedly, the samples were drawn from a sealed   packing.   There   is   no   evidence   to   suggest   that   the bags/packets of the fertilizer were torn or improperly stored. In this situation, the liability of a marketing company does not arise as is apparent from the judgments of this Court in Manoj Grover (supra),  Kehar   Singh  (supra),  Ghanvir   Singh  (supra).   The liability if any would lie with the manufacturing company." (emphasis supplied)

¶9A perusal of the impugned criminal complaint would reveal that the petitioner is the marketing company. Admittedly, the samples were drawn from a sealed packing. There is no evidence to suggest that the bags/packets of the fertilizer were torn or improperly stored. In this situation, the liability of a marketing company does not arise as is apparent from the judgments of this Court in Manoj Grover (supra), Kehar Singh (supra), Ghanvir Singh (supra) and M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. (supra). The liability if any would lie with the manufacturing company.

¶10In view of the above, I find considerable merit in the present petition.   Therefore,   the  Complaint   Case   No.132-II   dated   14.07.2015

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M)                                                                          -24- (Annexure P-7) registered under Clause 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Summoning Order dated 30.09.2015 (Annexure P-8)  and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE

07.05.2024 JITESH  Whether speaking/reasoned:-  Yes/No Whether reportable:-          Yes/No

CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12782-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.05.2024 M/S TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baljinder Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab. ****