IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 16.02.2026 Tarsem Chand ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) for quashing of order dated 22.05.2018, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phul in case arising out of FIR No. 50 dated 27.08.2018, registered under Sections 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) and Section 420 of IPC at Police Station Balianawali, District Bathinda, whereby charges under the aforesaid sections had been framed against the petitioner. The petitioner has also laid challenge to the order dated 28.09.2018, whereby the learned revisional Court had dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order dated 22.05.2018.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that on 27.08.2015, ASI Gurdeep Singh along with fellow police officials was on patrolling duty. He received a secret information to the effect that the petitioner had parked his car under a tree and is selling intoxicating tablets to innocent people as de-addiction medicines by representing himself as a qualified doctor and if a raid would be conducted, he could be apprehended with a huge quantity of intoxicating drugs. Believing the information to be reliable, a ruqa was sent to the police station concerned for registration of the FIR under the aforementioned provisions. Thereafter, a raid was conducted at the informed place and the petitioner was apprehended. A car parked near him was searched and recovery of 1,00,000/- intoxicant tablets was effected from the same. As per the FSL report, the recovered tablets were found containing Tramadol Hydrochloride. The petitioner was arrested and subsequently released on bail. After completion of investigation and usual formalities, challan under Section 173 of the Code was presented on 28.07.2017. Charges under Section 15 of the Act and Section 420 of IPC were framed against the petitioner.

3. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 22.05.2018, whereby charges had been framed against him under the aforementioned provisions. Vide order dated 24.02.2020, this Court has directed the learned trial Court to adjourn its proceedings beyond the date fixed before this Court, which is still continuing.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 22.05.2018, framing charges under Section 15 of the Act and Section 420 IPC, as well as the revisional order dated 28.09.2018, are illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law as both the Courts ignored the fact that he was a licensed registered chemist and the recovered medicine was containing Tramadol Hydrochloride, which was not banned or prohibited as per the license issued to him. The license issued to him was valid till 31.12.2021. Hence, no offence under Section 15 of the Act can be stated to have been committed by the petitioner. Even otherwise, offence punishable under Section 15(3) of the Act is a non-cognizable offence and the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of any police report. More so, no offence under Section is made out against the petitioner, particularly, when the petitioner was having a valid drug license. The very registration of FIR and the subsequent proceedings are nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law. While passing the impugned orders, the learned trial Court as well as the learned revisional Court did not take all these facts into consideration and the passed the orders in a mechanical manner. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be all