The main legal point established in the judgment is that an additional complaint filed during the pendency of the trial of the original complaint was not maintainable, and the summoning order based on it was without jurisdiction. The court emphasized the importance of waiting for the appropriate stage of the trial to summon the accused as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. (Oral) - Prayer in this petition is for quashing of the complaint bearing No.158 of 2014 dated 03.09.2014 (Annexure P-1) titled as Regional Officer, Haryana State Pollution Control Board v. M/s QRG Medicare Ltd. and others , filed under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and all the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom, including the order dated 03.09.2014 (Annexure P-2), order dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 20.01.2015 (Annexure P-4), vide which the trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioners on the ground that on the same set of facts, an earlier complaint bearing No.10/2013 dated 25.04.2013 (Annexure P-5) titled as Regional Officer, Haryana State Pollution Control Board v. M/s QRG Central Hospital and Research Centre and others is pending and vide order dated 25.04.2013 (Annexure P-7), the summoning order was issued against the accused persons, arrayed in the said complaint, as the petitioners were not arrayed as accused in the earlier complaint.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that dispute between the parties is squarely covered by the judgment dated 06.08.2015 passed in CRM-M-3673-2015 (Smt. Vinod Gupta v. Haryana State Pollution Control Board through its Regional Officer, Faridabad Region, Panchkula) and other connected cases, in which, with reference to the impugned complaint, this Court has held that only remedy available with the complaint, who had filed the previous complaint, is to file an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 and not to file an additional complaint (impugned complaint).

The order dated 06.08.2015 passed by this Court reads as under: -

"These three identical petitions, filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.' for short), whereby different accused are seeking quashing of same complaint bearing No. 158 of 2014 dated 3.9.2014 (Annexure P-1), are being decided by this common order, as all the three petitions are based on same set of facts. However, for the facility of reference, the facts are being culled out from CRM-M-3673-2015.

Shorn of detailed factual background of the matter, it would suffice to note only the basic facts, which are necessary for disposal of these petitions. Complaint No. 10 of 2013 dated 23.4.2013 (Annexure P-5) was filed by the respondent-Board/complainant under Section 15 read with Section 19 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (`the Act' for short) against M/s QRG Central Hospital & Research Centre, a company incorporated under the Companies Act as accused No.1, Qimat Rai Gupta, Anil Gupta, Ameet Kumar Gupta, Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sanjev Gupta and Vibha Gupta, as accused Nos. 2 to 7, respectively, being Directors of accused No.1, besides Shalini Gupta and Sangeeta Gupta as Principal/Responsible officers of M/s QRG Central Hospital & Research Centre, as accused Nos. 8 and 9. The learned court of competent jurisdiction issued the summoning order dated 25.4.2014 vide Annexure P7, however, only against accused Nos. 1 to 7.

During the pendency of the above-said complaint (Annexure P-5), impugned complaint bearing No.158 of 2014 dated 3.9.2014 (Annexure P-1) came to be filed by the respondent-Board/complainant as an additional complaint. The learned court took cognizance of this additional complaint and issued the impugned summoning order dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure P-3). In the additional complaint, the respondent-complainant/Board sought to make the petitioners as accused persons, not in the capacity as Directors or Principal/responsible officers of M/s QRG Central Hospital & Research Centre but as Directors or authorised representatives of M/s QRG Medicare Limited, a different company incorporated under the Companies Act. Petitioners in CRM-M-5691-2015 were made accused in the additional complaint (Annexure P-1) as representatives of M/s The Vivekananda Ashram, Faridabad. All the three petitions are challenging only the additional complaint (A