IMPORTANT POINT
The court quashed proceedings under Section 420 IPC, finding no prima facie case of cheating due to lack of essential ingredients despite accepting allegations at face value.

ORDER :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.91 of 2019 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.,[for short ‘IPC’]

2. The contents of the charge sheet, in brief, are as follows :

a. Accused is running Sri Amrutha Food Products at Auto Nagar E Block, Visakhapatnam. He is authorized to utilize the brand name of Chintoos Food. On 17.09.2018, the Complainant/Food Safety Officer along with RV & EO staff conducted search at Sri Amrutha Food Products at Auto Nagar E Block, on suspicion lifted four food samples and sent them to the Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad.

b. Vide the Analysis Report, Proprietor is having FSSA License bearing No.10116028000633 but he has been using the printed covers with FSSA No.13616015000224 and details of Chintoos food 90k ida katteadem Hyderabad 50077 in which he is filling the savories manufactured and selling them to the public for human consumption.

c. As such, he lodged a complaint before the Police, which is registered as a case in Crime No.339 of 2018 for the offence under Section 420 IPC against the Petitioner/Accused which was numbered as C.C.No.91 of 2019 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam for the said offence.

Grounds Sought for Quashment

3. Aggrieved by the registration of the case against them, Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition on the following grounds :

a. Admittedly in this case, if really the complainant Food Safety Officer took the sample and sent for the Analysis, they must receive a report as well as they ought to have examined him, but no such Analyst’s name in the list of witnesses is mentioned, hence they have not followed the procedure nor sent any samples officially certified about the offence, hence the case is bad in law.

b. The main case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner used the label of Chintoos Foods at Hyderabad, hence Chintoos Foods must be a victim, but, no complaint has been given by Chintoos Foods. Admittedly, Chintoos Foods has given authorization to the Petitioner/Accused to use their label and brand as per the certificate issued hence admittedly there is no offence as alleged in the charge sheet.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri R. Siva Sai Swarup for the Petitioners, and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused would submit that L.W.5- Chintoos Foods has given authorization to the Petitioner to use their label and brand from 01.11.2016 to 31.10.2018, as such, the offence under Section 420 IPC has not been committed by the Petitioner, as alleged. It is submitted that the allegations in the charge sheet do not attract the said offence, therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rekha Jain v. The State of Karnataka & Another, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 468 and the High Court of Bombay in Anant & Others v. State of Maharashtra & another, [Criminal Application No.1471 of 2013, dated 24.09.2018].

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations leveled against the Petitioner for the commission of the alleged offence. The matter has to be decided during trial. At this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

Point for Determination

7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is :

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for q