Police Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction To Register FIR For Offences Under Drugs & Cosmetics Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court allowed a Petition filed for quashing of an Order by which the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) allowed an Application under Section 156(3) of CrPC, resulting in registration of the FIR.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court clarified that the Police does not have jurisdiction to register an FIR for the offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (D&C Act), which can be undertaken only by a competent officer.
The Court was hearing a Petition filed for quashing of an Order by which the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) allowed an Application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), resulting in registration of the FIR under Sections 274 and 275 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 13 of D&C Act.
A Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “… it is concluded that the Police does not have any jurisdiction to register an FIR in respect of the offences under D & C Act which can be undertaken only by the competent officer under S.32 D & C Act. Therefore, the registration of FIR under the provisions of D & C Act is without jurisdiction and FIR in respect of offences under D & C Act is quashed.”
The Bench said that even though Section 473 of CrPC enables the Court to take cognizance of the offence even after expiry of the period of limitation, but in this case, investigations have not been concluded despite registration of FIR in 2019 for no explicable reason.
Advocate Aditya Singh Deshwal represented the Petitioners while APP Utkarsh represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
A Criminal Complaint was filed by the Respondent company against the Petitioner-LLP before the MM for allegedly supplying them defective medicines i.e., Docetaxel 20 mg as it had broken glasses and visible foreign particles in the vials, which was noticed after the delivery of the product. It was alleged that despite this being brought to the notice of the Complainant, the Respondent-State failed to take any corrective measures.
The Complainant, therefore, sought registration of FIR against the Petitioners for their alleged illegal acts of “manufacturing of product, medicines and injections which may cause serious harm to the patient.” The MM under Section 156(3) of CrPC directed registered of FIR against the Petitioner and its partner and employees. Hence, this Order was under challenge before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, observed, “… in the light of law as explicitly explained in Ashok Kumar (supra), the present FIR could not have been registered for any offences under the D & C Act by the police, which is in the exclusive domain of Drugs Inspector. Moreover, it is noted in the Status Report that Drugs Inspector, Karnataka has already initiated investigations in the allegations of adulterated/spurious drugs, under D&C Act.”
The Court noted that whatever the particles that may have been found in the product, they were definitely not present till the product got dispatched from the factory of Petitioners.
“… the Product was of Standard quality till it got dispatched from the Factory of the Petitioner, but the Particulates came in during the transit or thereafter, for which the Petitioner cannot be held responsible. … To put it concisely, adulteration has prima facie been noticed only at the premises of Respondent No.2 and not at the time of dispatch from the Manufacturing Unit of the Petitioner No.1. Also, the Product never got sold in the market. Further, the proceeding for prosecution under D&S Act has already been initiated by the Drugs Inspector, Karnataka, as per the Status Report”, it said.
The Court remarked that there is nothing to suggest that Petitioners can be attributed responsibility for the presence of suspended particles as noticed in the products at the premises of the Respondent, which were not present at the time of dispatch from factory of the Petitioner.
“There is prima facie no offence under Section 274 IPC made out against the Petitioners even if all the averments made in the Complaint are admitted”, it added.
Conclusion
The Court further said that there is not even a prima facie case to justify registration of FIR under the IPC offences and in such circumstances, continuation of investigations in this FIR is not expedient or in the interest of justice to continue with such proceedings after lapse of about six years of the alleged commission of offence.
“The FIR is liable to be quashed under S.482 Cr.P.C. … the FIR was registered in the year 2019, but till date even the investigations have not been completed. The limitation as per Section 468 IPC for concluding the investigations and the Chargesheet to be filed in the Court for the purpose of taking cognizance is one year. It is not expedient or in the interest of justice to let the investigations be continued in such a case which is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is in fact, an abuse of the process of law which merits a quashing”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition and quashed the FIR against the Petitioners.
Cause Title- Revacure Lifesciences LLP & Ors. v. State Govt of NCT Delhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8558)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Aditya Singh Deshwal and Daksh Sharma.
Respondents: APP Utkarsh, Advocates Biswajit Swain and Akhil Ganga.
