Back
2024 Supreme(Pat) 1187
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANDEEP KUMAR, J.
TTK Healthcare Limited, Son of Shri S. Narasimhan, through authorised representative Mr. N Kannan, S/o. Shri S. Narasimhan – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1256 of 2024
Decided On : 01-08-2024
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dayanand Singh, Mr. Dhananjay Kashyap, Mr. Tarang Agrawal.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, Mr. Sameer Ranjan.
A complaint must contain specific allegations against individuals to warrant criminal proceedings; vague and unsupported accusations represent civil disputes and cannot sustain a criminal charge.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406 and 420 - Quashing of cognizance in criminal proceedings - Complaint filed for alleged financial and reputational loss due to product sales without requisite approvals - Court found that no criminal offence was made out as the complaint represented a mere business dispute and important facts were concealed by the complainant. (Paras 1-26)
(B) Principles of Quashing - The court emphasized that a complaint alleging criminal action must contain specific allegations against individuals; without such, the proceedings cannot continue and must be quashed. (Paras 25)
(C) Application of Mind - The court held that the magistrate must apply judicial mind before taking cognizance; mechanical orders reflecting no application of mind are liable to be set aside. (Paras 11, 21-24)
Facts of the case:
The complainant accused the petitioner of supplying a medicine without necessary approvals, alleging financial loss due to intervention by drug authorities. The petitioner argued that the complaint was based on false facts and that the product was not manufactured by them but by a subsidiary.
Findings of Court:
The proceedings were quashed, stating no offence was made out and that the complaint contained suppressed material facts.
Issues: The issues pertained to whether the petitioner could be prosecuted for actions of the manufacturer and whether the complaint constituted a valid criminal accusation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere allegations without specific accusations against individuals do not warrant criminal proceedings, emphasizing that business disputes do not translate into criminal offences.
Result: Application allowed; criminal proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. correction in cause title and representation established. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. allegations of the complainant regarding lack of approval and malfeasance noted. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. importance of a magistrate's application of mind in cognizance. (Para 8 , 12) |
| 4. allegations made in the complaints highlight business disputes. (Para 9) |
| 5. clarification of product liability and involvement of manufacturers. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. accusations against the petitioner imply business disputes. (Para 16) |
| 7. absence of specific allegations against petitioners supports complaint dismissal. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. complaint quashed in interests of justice. (Para 25 , 26) |
ORDER :
(Sandeep Kumar, J.)
The office is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the petition as TTK Healthcare Limited is being represented by the authorized signatory and therefore, son of Shri S Narasimhan should be deleted from the cause title. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing/setting aside the Impugned Order dated 24.05.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IV, Darbhanga in CR No. 373 /2016 (R No. 382/2016) along with the entire criminal proceedings whereby and whereunder, the Court below has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the Petitioner and some unknown officials / designations of the Petitioner and further issued summons against them.
3. It is further submitted that the CR No. 373/2016 (R No. 382/2016) has been filed by one, Sheela Singh, i.e. the Opposite Party No. 2 has alleged that the proprietor of one RS Enterprises, has made the following allegations:
I. The Complainant has alleged that she is engaged in the business of selling the medicines manufactured by the Accused Company, the Petitioner herein, from years and vide Order dated 17.07.2015 of the Accused Company, the Complainant was supplied with a medicine namely 'Ossopan HD' ("Product") worth Rs. 12,178 in addition to other medicines.
II. On 14.08.2015, in a routine inspection by the Drug Inspector, Municipal Area 03, Darbhanga, the Drug Inspector directed the Complainant to not sell the aforesaid 'Ossopan HD' and further asked the Complainant to submit all the requisite documents pertaining to the approval of the said Product.
III. The Complainant issued letters dated 15.06.2015 and 02.09.2015 to the Petitioner Company and super stockiest, M/s BS Enterprises asking for a copy of documents pertaining to approval of aforesaid 'Ossopan HD' and thereafter, the Complainant issued legal notices dated 30.10.2015 and 19.12.2015, however, no response was received by the Complainant.
IV. The Complainant has alleged that the act of the Petitioner Company of supplying the Complainant with the Product without requisite approval has caused financial and reputational loss to the Complainant.
4. It is further submitted that on the basis of aforesaid allegations, the Complainant registered the criminal complaint vide CR No. 373/2016 (R No. 382/2016), wherein, the Complainant made the three named accused, Mahaprabandhak, TTK Healthcare Ltd.; Up- mahaprabandhak, TTK Healthcare Ltd. and TTK Healthcare Ltd., the Petitioner herein.
5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Complainant recorded two enquiry witness in support of her complaint and the Court below, without application of mind, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against all the accused persons and further directed for issuance of summons.
6. He submits that it is pertinent to mention that though the Court passed the Order impugned on 24.05.2018, the summons have been issued after five years and thus the Petitioner
