The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the Magistrate to scrutinize the allegations in the complaint under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the application of the legal principles established in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel in determining the sufficiency of the allegations.

1. These petitions are filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-A complaint in both the cases. The petitioners are accused in C.C.Nos.602/2009 and 603/2009 of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. The 2nd respondent in both Crl.M.Cs filed the above complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha against the petitioners alleging offence punishable u/s.120B, 415, 417, 418 and Prevention of Cruelty against Animals Act, 1960. Petitioners allegations in both cases are same. The petitioners contended that no averments are made in the complaint to attract the alleged offence. 1st petitioner is the Medical Representative of a veterinary Medicine Company at Alappuzha, Virbac Animal Health India Private Limited, based at Mumbai. Petitioners 2 and 3 are wholesale dealers of the Indian Company based at Alappuzha, who are entitled to sell Drugs on wholesale basis only. Petitioners 4 to 10 are the senior most Executives of the parent Company based at France, which includes the Chairman, The Chief Operating Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, the Presidents and Vice-President, all of the Directors, who are residing outside India. The said Company has established a reputation in the field of veterinary medicine and had been selling through the world medicines without any risk or reason for complaints. According to the petitioners, mandatory proceedings included in the Code of Criminal Procedure were violated by the Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance of the offence. When prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners, proceedings against the petitioners is a mere abuse of the process of Court. Therefore, the petitioners pray to invoke the inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C.

2. The allegations of the defacto complainants in both cases (C.C.No.602/2009 & 609/2009) are that the 1st petitioner, who is the medical representative, visited their house and persuaded them to buy 25 vials of vaccine thorough C.V. Agencies, whole sale dealer, run by petitioners 2 and 3, by making them believe that virul infections like Canine Distemper, Parvo viral, Leptospirosis, Hepatitis etc affecting the animals, can be prevented by these vaccines. Therefore, the defacto complainants purchased the vaccine from petitioners 2 and 3 and got them administered through a Veterinary Doctor to their dogs and as a result, the dogs died due to the effect of vaccine. In the circumstances, the defacto complainants in both the cases preferred the above complaints before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that petitioners 2 and 3 never sold any medicines to the 1st petitioner as alleged by the 2nd respondent. Petitioners 2 and 3 are whole sale dealers of veterinary medicines and they are distributing veterinary medicines and vaccines manufactured by its parent Company namely, Virbac SA, based at France. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners 2 and 3 have no chance for selling retail medicines, since they are entitled to sell drugs only on whole sale basis. Petitioners 4 to 10 are senior most Executives of the Company residing outside India and they have no connection with the alleged incident. The person incharge and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the Company was not impleaded as party by the defacto complainants in their compliant. Therefore, they are not liable for such prosecution. No ingredients attracting the alleged offence were averred in Annexure-A complaint in C.C.Nos.602/2009 and 603/2009. If trial is proceeded, it amounts to a mere abuse of the process of the Court. Moreover, there is violation of Section 202 Cr.P.C.

4. The learned counsel for 2nd respondent in both the petitions, resisted the above contention and contended that the parent company manufactured and distributed killer medicines among its whole sale dealers in this country, which caused the death of dogs. When such killer medicines are supplied b