IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA th ON THE 16 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 49589 of 2024 SHRI GAURAV AIREN AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Mr. Raghvendra Dixit - Advocate for the petitioners.

Mrs. Ankita Mathur – Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.

______________________________________________________________________

ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 21.08.2023, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena, in which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners.

2. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that a private complaint has been filed under section 32 of the Drugs and cosmetics Act 1940 (for short "Act of 1940"), alleging that the information was tendered to respondent vide letter dated 04-08-2021 at the instance of civil surgeon cum Chief Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital Morena, regarding drug compound Sodium Nitrate Injection Batch no. 10311, [date of manufacturing March 2021 expiry date February 2023], manufactured by M/s IVEs Drugs [India] Pvt. Ltd. It is alleged that, by using the subject drug, a patient was felt trembling.

3. After receiving such complaint, sample was obtained by the respondent, as per provisions of aforesaid Act, 1940, after following due process of law, those samples collected in different 4 bags, out of which, one sample was forwarded to the testing laboratory CDL Kolkata, for its testing. After scrutiny laboratory test sample was found to be not of standard quality, as declared by CDL vide its communication dated 25/11/2021. Accordingly, complaint was filed to prosecute petitioners as it is punishable offence u/Ss 18 (a)(1) and 27 (d) of the Act of

1940(Annexure/P-1).

4. On receiving such complaint u/s 32 of the Act of 1940 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance, exercising the powers of Section 190 (1)(A) of Cr.P.C (old Provision) vide its order dated 21/08/2023(Annexure P/2). It is further submitted that before taking cognizance on the complaint of respondent, learned court below has not appreciated the provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 1940, according to which without impleading concerned company as an accused, cognizance could not have been taken against the directors like petitioners without verifying their day to day work in discharging of duty even as an in-charge of concerned company. Being aggrieved by registration of criminal proceeding case no.1717/2023, present petition has been filed.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that impugned order and consequential criminal proceedings of Case No.1717/2023 is utmost illegal, bad-in-law and contrary to sprit of Section 34 of the Act of 1940, hence deserves to be quashed.

6. It is further submitted that the petitioners are undisputedly the directors of M/s IVES Drugs (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ghata Billod, Distt. Dhar (M.P.). They have been made accused in the private complaint without impleading the concerned company as an accused. Thus, such a complaint is itself not tenable in the eyes of law.

7. A bare perusal of the memo of complaint makes it crystal clear that no averment has been taken alleging the liability of any of the Directors, or proving that the present petitioners were performing the day-to-day work and discharging their duty on behalf of the company for the purpose of the commission of an offence under Section 18 read with Section 27 of the Act of 1940.

8. Thus, in the absence of any pleading or material to the effect that the petitioners were in-charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time the offence was committed on behalf of the company, the impugned order could not have been passed. Furthermore, the complaint filed by the respondent is not maintainable because it fails to disclose the specific role of the present petitioners.

Hence, such criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.

9. For