JUDGMENT :

MANISHA BATRA, J. 

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking quashing of Criminal complaint bearing No. 521 dated 07.12.2019 (Annexure P-4), titled as State of Haryana vs. Sh. Sandeep & others, filed under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravention of Clause 19(a) and (b) of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind as well as for quashing of order dated 07.12.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed therein, whereby the petitioners were ordered to be summoned as accused to face trial for commission of aforementioned offences.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned complaint has been filed through the complainant-Quality Control Inspector, Jind on the allegations that the complainant inspected the premises of M/s Tirupati Khad Bhandar, Old Anaj Mandi, Julana on 13.03.2019. During checking, he found that 30 pieces of Zinc Oxide Suspension 39.5 in 250 ML packing bearing Batch No. 7KZN0020, manufactured by M/s P. L. Agro Technologies and marketed by petitioner No. 1-M/s FMC India Private Limited, Mumbai, were stocked therein. Samples were drawn from the said fertilizers by randomly selecting three pieces of the said fertilizers. Out of these samples, one sample was handed over to the dealer and remaining two samples were submitted to Deputy Director of Agriculture, Jind on 13.03.2019, who sent one sample to Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory Fertilizers, Karnal on 14.03.2019 for analysis and one reference sample was kept by the office of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Jind. An analysis report dated 29.03.2019 was received by the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory Fertilizers, Karnal, wherein the sample of the aforementioned fertilizer was found to be misbranded as the contents of Nitrogen was found to be 0.84% instead of 0.9% and the contents of Zinc was found to be 27.25% instead of 39.5%. Show cause notices were issued to the manufacturers, dealer, marketing firm and its office bearers/employees.

3. As per the further allegations, on the request of the marketing firm, the reference sample was sent for retesting to the office of Director Central Quality Control and Training Institute, Faridabad but the same was still found to be misbranded. Hence, by alleging that M/s Tirupati Khad Bhandar and accused Sandeep, being proprietor and responsible person of this dealer firm, petitioner No. 1-M/s FMC India Private Limited and petitioner No. 2 being responsible person of this marketing firm along with manufacturers and other accused had committed aforementioned offences, prayer was made for summoning them to face trial for commission of such offences. After presentation of the complaint, preliminary evidence was led and finding a prima facie case for commission of aforementioned offences, the impugned order dated 07.12.2019 was passed by the learned trial Court, thereby summoning the petitioners and other accused to face trial therein.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned complaint as well as the summoning order dated 07.12.2019 are not sustainable in the eyes. Petitioner No. 1 is only a marketing company which is registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and deals in crop protection, crop nutrition and professional pest management. It works in partnership with its customers to deliver solutions that meet the needs of its customers. Petitioner No. 2 was its employee. It is further argued that since the petitioners were only a marketing firm and its employee, respectively, they could not be held responsible, in any manner, for the sub-standard fertilizer contained in the bags from which three samples had been drawn by the complainant. A perusal of the allegations levelled in the complaint would show that there