Magistrate in summons cases cannot discharge accused or recall summons order post-issuance; remedy is under Section 482 CrPC, not discharge application.

The present petition has been filed against the order dated 08.08.2025, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which an application seeking discharge of the applicant (the accused before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed on the ground that no such jurisdiction is vested in the Magistrate. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Drugs Inspector filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused and other persons asserting that he had inspected the shop being run in the name and style of M/s Shri Shri Medical Store, situated opposite the Bus Stand Nadaun, District Hamirpur (HP) and obtained the samples of Chlorpheniramine Maleate Tablets for analysis. These were sent to the Government Analyst, CTL Kandaghat, who issued a report stating that the drug was not of standard quality. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused after completing the necessary formalities.

3. The accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and filed an application seeking his discharge. Learned Trial Court held that it had no jurisdiction to discharge a person in a summons case.

4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner/accused has filed the present petition, asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application. The mandatory provisions of Section 23 (4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (Drugs Act), 1940 were violated. The sample was sent for analysis after a delay, and no justification was provided for it. No sanction was obtained from the competent authority. The manufacturer, M/s Legen Healthcare, was not impleaded as a party. The retailer could not have been punished without prosecuting the manufacturer. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 19 (3) of the Drugs Act as the drug was properly sold and maintained in accordance with the prescribed conditions. The complaint does not mention that the petitioner was in charge of the company or was responsible for the conduct of its business. The mandatory provisions of the law were not complied with. Learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application. The learned Magistrate has ample power to discharge the accused person at any stage of the trial after being satisfied that the accusation is groundless. The learned Magistrate failed to consider the plea taken by the petitioner. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

5. I have heard Mr Sunny Dhatwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

6. Mr Sunny Dhatwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application. The pleas taken by the petitioner were not considered, and the application was dismissed on the technical ground that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to discharge the accused. The learned Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage if he finds that the charges against the accused are groundless. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

7. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the learned Trial Court had