Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 432

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Vijay Laxmi Verma - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 1280 of 2025
Decided On : 23-02-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Parav Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents/State:Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General

In summons cases, post-issuance of summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C., Magistrate cannot entertain discharge or recall order; remedy lies under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:(A) Cr.P.C., 1973 - Sections 200, 202, 203, 204 and 482 - Summons cases - Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to discharge accused or recall summoning order after taking cognizance and issuing process under Section 204 - No provision for review or reconsideration at that stage - Remedy for aggrieved accused is petition under Section 482 before High Court. (Paras 9, 10)

(B) Quashing proceedings under Section 482 distinguished from discharge application - Order quashing complaint against co-accused in separate petition does not automatically apply to other accused in discharge proceedings without foundational facts like summoning order or case stage. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
Drugs Inspector inspected medical store, collected samples of tablets sent for analysis; report declared drug not of standard quality with 87.9% ratio - Complaint filed against accused - Accused filed discharge application in summons case, dismissed by trial court holding no jurisdiction - Petition challenging dismissal raising delay in analysis, lack of permission from competent authority, excess quantity, and quashing for co-accused.

Findings of Court:
Trial court rightly held no jurisdiction for discharge; petition against dismissal order fails - Proceedings to continue; observations confined to petition disposal without affecting merits.

Issues: Whether Magistrate has jurisdiction to discharge accused in summons case post-issuance of summons; whether quashing order for co-accused mandates similar relief.

Ratio Decidendi: After satisfaction under Sections 200/202 leading to process under Section 204, Section 203 stage passed; no hearing or discharge for accused at that point - Scheme of Cr.P.C. prohibits review; High Court petition under Section 482 appropriate remedy. Result : Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. substandard drug sample prosecution background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. procedural defects and co-accused quashing raised. (Para 4 , 6)
3. magistrate cannot discharge or recall summons order. (Para 5 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. no discharge remedy in summons cases. (Para 7)
5. co-accused quashing inapplicable; no quashing grounds. (Para 12 , 13)
6. petition dismissed without merits prejudice. (Para 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present petition has been filed against the order dated 13.10.2025, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadaun, District Hamirpur (learned Trial Court) vide which an application for discharging the applicant (the accused before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed after holding that no such jurisdiction is vested in him. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, that 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 Medical Store, Opposite 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 mentioning that the drug was not of standard quality. 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 her 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. There was an inordinate delay in sending the samples for examination. The complaint was filed without taking any permission from the competent authority, as per the guidelines of the Director General of Health Services. The prosecution could not be launched if the quantity of drugs in the sample is above 70% of the standard laid down. In the present case, the sample had a ratio of 87.9 %, and the prosecution was not maintainable. The sample was collected on 08.01.2009, and the report was issued on 31.10.2009. A petition for quashing of the complaint was filed by co-accused Anil Mediratta and Ors, which was registered as Cr.MMO. No. 738 of 2021 and was allowed on 04.07.2024. Therefore, 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 Parav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

6. Mr Parav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application. The Coordinate Bench of this Court had allowed the petition filed by co-accused Anil Mediratta, and the present proceedings cannot continue against the present petitioner. Therefore, 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 rightly held that there is no provision for discharging the accused in a summons case. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

9. It is undisputed that the learned Trial Court is trying the present matter as a summons case. Learned Trial Court had rightly held that the Magistrate does not have the