GAHC010171722020 2025:GAU-AS:12940 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH Crl.Pet. No. 592/2020 1. ^{Subrata Chakraborty,ss} S/o Sri Sufal Chakraborty, At P/R/A Sarada Enclave, Flat No. 404, 4^th Floor, Survey, Beltola Road, Brindaban Path, P.S.-Basistha, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, Assam, Pin-781028 and P/R/O/B2/17 Vidyasagar Pally, Benachity, Durgapur, P.S.-Benachity, P.O.- Benachity, Dist-Burdwan, West Bengal, Pin-713213.

Petitioner -Versus-

1. The State of Assam.

2. Ashim Borah, S/o Rajen Kr. Borah, R/o R.R.L. Jorhat, P.O. And P.S.-Jorhat, District- Jorhat, Assam-785006.

Respondents For Petitioner(s) 1. Mr. B. Pathak, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) 1. Ms. S.H. Bora, Additional Public Prosecutor.

2. Ms. N. Choudhury, Advocate.

Date of Judgment : 17.09.2025 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA JUDGEMENT & ORDER(CAV)

1. Heard Mr. B. Pathak, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent, as well as Ms.

N. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner, namely, Subrata Chakraborty, praying for quashing of the FIR dated 16.10.2020 lodged by one Ashim Borah (respondent No. 2) on the basis of which Jorhat P.S. Case No. 2257/2020 was registered under Sections 406/272/273 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 corresponding to the G.R. Case No. 3680/2020.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are that on 16.10.2020, the respondent No. 2 (Ashim Borah)had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Jorhat police station, inter alia, alleging that on that day, at about 5:05 PM, he had ordered for a “5 in 1 Zinger Classic Chicken Box” from the KFC, Jorhat. After availing the meal from the counter, the informant was utterly disappointed with the food quality provided by the KFC, when he found that the chicken that were offered to him was highly rotten and smell rotten and disgusting. When the said complaint was made to the staff of the KFC, none of the staff was ready to accept the responsibility, whereas, other customers who were present there also complaint regarding the smell and quality of the chicken. On receipt of the said FIR, Jorhat P.S. Case No. 2257/2020 was registered under Sections 406/272/273 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

4. Mr. B. Pathak, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the instant case there is no ingredients of offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He submits that even if it is assume that the allegations levelled in the FIR are true, it would only result into tortious liability against his restaurant. He also submits that if Section 406 is removed from the FIR, what remains is the alleged offence under Sections 272/273 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which prescribes the maximum punishment, which are non- cognizable offence and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that police cannot register an FIR without the order of a competent Magistrate.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that after passing of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 the provisions of Sections 272/273 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has become redundant and any accusation regarding quality of food has to be dealt with under the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

6. He submits that said Act has provided as to who can collect the samples and also lays down the procedure of collecting the samples. He submits that under Section 47 of the said Act, the sampling and analysis of the alleged contaminated food has been prescribed and same was not adhered to in the instant case, as it was the respondent No. 2 himself, who took the alleged contaminated food to the police station without following the procedure of sampling and analysis as prescribed in Section 47