Honble WADHWA, J.–Leave granted.

(2). The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated September 23, 1996 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) dismissing their writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The appellants sought quashing of the complaint filed against them under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short `the Act). The prayers in the writ petition were worded as under:

``(a) issue a writ of prohibition or a writ, order or direction in the nature nature of prohibition, prohibiting the Opposite Party Number-1 to proceed with case No. 699 of 1994 (Anurag Narain vs. Nitin Sachdeva and others);

(b) issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the natureof certiorari quashing the proceedings in Case No. 699 of 1994 together with the consequential order dated 9.5.1994 and the complaint dated 6.5.1993 in so far as it pertains to be petitioners;

(c) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite Party Number-1 not to proceed with the Case No. 699 of 1994 during the pendency of the afore- said writ petition;

(d) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem just and necessary in the circumstances of the case may also be passed; and

(e) to allow the writ petition with costs.

(3). There are two appellants,second appellant is the Managing Director of first appellant. The respondents are three. First respondent is the court where the appellants alongwith other have been summoned for having committed offences under Sections 7/16 of the Act. The second respondent is the complainant and the third respondent is the State of Uttar Pradesh.

(4). The allegation in the complaint is that complainant was sold a bottle of beverage under the brand ``Lehar Pepsi which was adulterated. The bottle was purchased by the complainant on September 13, 1993. He filed the complaint on May 6, 1994. After recording preliminary evidence the Magistrate passed orders summoning the appellants and others on May 9, 1994. It appears that when the summons reached the appellants they immediately approached the High Court seeking aforesaid reliefs. The High Court, however, refused to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the appellants should approach the 1st respondent for their discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `the Code), if the complaint did not disclose commission of any offence by the appellants and the Court considered the charge to be groundless. The High Court did not approve of the appellants approaching it under writ jurisdiction when sufficient remedy was available under the Code. The High Court was also of the opinion that it could not be said at that stage that the allegations in the complaint were so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent man could ever reach a just conclusion that there existed no sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. On the plea of the appellants that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act read with Rule 9-A of the Rules framed under the Act were violated and onthat account the inquiry or trial stood vitiated, the High Court said that the appellants could well approach the court for that purpose and that it was no stage for the High Court to record its finding. Yet another plea of the appellants that provisions of Section 203 and 245(2) of the Code did not provide an adequate remedy for a person charged on flimsy grounds and that in view of the decision of this Court in State of Haryana vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal and Others (1), the court should interfere also did not find favour with the High Court. It was of the opinion that Chaudhary Bhajan Lals case pertained to a cognizable offence where police had taken cognizance of the matter and in a complaint case the Magistrate was empowered to discharge the accused at

Click Here to Read the rest of this document