The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on police powers to register an FIR for offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as specified in Section 32 of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. - Both the petitions detailed hereinabove are being decided by this common order. The petitioners in both the petitions are seeking quashing of FIR No.17 dated 03.02.2021 under Sections 188, 420 IPC and Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act').

2. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to give a brief run up to the sequence of events leading to the filing of the instant petition.

3. The complainant/respondent No.2 received information from Ayush Haryana on 02.02.2021 qua some medicines being manufactured, without valid permission, by Shama Biotech at Plot No.46, Shahbad Road, Sector 1, Industrial Area, District Ambala. Thereafter, he along with his team inspected the aforesaid premises of Shama Biotech on the same day. During inspection, the complainant/respondent No.2 found stocks of 8 different types of Ayurvedic medicines, however, the Production Manager of the firm, who was present there, on being asked was unable to furnish any permission/license for production of the aforesaid ayurvedic medicines. The petitioner Vineet Bhagat being owner of the Shama Biotech was contacted through phone, who expressed his inability to come present at the spot. Accordingly, the complainant/respondent No.2 gave a notice as per form 15 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act to the Production Manager Mr. Khalid Raza and directed him not to dispose of the stock of medicines for 20 days and to store the entire stock inside the premises. Subsequently, petitioner Vineet Bhagat reached at the spot at 10 p.m. and in his presence the respondent No.2/complainant took three samples of the 7 types of Ayurvedic medicines, sealed them and sent them for testing to State Drug Testing Lab, Ayush Deptt., Kurukshetra. Thereafter, on the next day i.e. 03.02.2021, the FIR in question was registered at the instance of complainant/respondent No.2 for commission of offence under Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Sections 188 and 420 IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the FIR in question is a gross misuse of the process of law and it has been registered in blatant violation of the statutory provisions of law. While inviting the attention of this Court to the allegations levelled in the FIR, which has been annexed as Annexure P-1, learned counsel have argued with vehemence that on a bare perusal of the FIR, the ingredients of the offences alleged therein are not even made out. It has been further urged that it is no longer res-integra that for offences falling under Chapter IV of the Act, neither can the police register an FIR, nor investigate into the said offences. It is only the Drug Inspector who can investigate into the commission of offences under the Act, and thereafter, directly move a complaint before the Court of law. Hence, it is abundantly clear that the FIR in question had been wrongly and illegally registered in blatant violation of the provisions of Section 32 of the Act. Learned counsel have further argued that the offences under the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Code') had been added by the police only with an oblique motive so as to circumvent the provisions of Section 32 of the Act.

5. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance upon 'Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma' 2020 RCR (Criminal) 726(3).

6. Per contra, learned State counsel while vehemently controverting the submissions made by the counsel opposite, has argued that as per the provisions of Section 32 Sub-Section (3) of the Act, police is empowered to investigate and prosecute a person under any other law, if he has committed any act or omission which constitutes an offence against Chapter IV of the Act. He submits that since the offences of cheating and forgery were also found to have been committed by the petitioners along with an offence under Section 18(c) of the Act, the police was duty bound under Section 15