Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2142
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Alok Mahra, J
Nestle India Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1355 of 2019 | Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1564 of 2019 | Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1565 of 2019 | Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1568 of 2019 | Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 2419 of 2019 | Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 2420 of 2019 | Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 2421 of 2019 | Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 944 of 2023 | Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 945 of 2023 | Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 946 of 2023 | Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 947 of 2023 | Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 948 of 2023
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajesh Bata, Hari Mohan Bhatia, Sonia Kukreja
For the Respondents: Akshay Latwal
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the dispute and previous judicial findings on product safety. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. challenges to the scientific basis and statutory validity of the food analysis. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. mandatory requirement of nabl accreditation and fssai notification for food laboratories. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. necessity of arraying the company for officer liability and adherence to statutory limitation for cognizance. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. requirement of lawful sanction and the court's power to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. quashing of proceedings due to legal and procedural infirmities. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
Presence:-
Mr. Rajesh Bata, Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia and Ms. Sonia Kukreja, learned counsel for the Applicants.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Hon’ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J. (Oral)
1. These applications have been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (as applicable at the relevant time), seeking quashing of the complaint cases, cognizance orders, summoning orders and all consequential proceedings instituted against the applicants for offences punishable under Sections 52 and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the FSS Act”), pending before the courts of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. Since all the aforesaid applications arise out of identical facts, involve common questions of law and challenge similar proceedings initiated pursuant to reports relating to alleged non-conformity of “MAGGI 2-Minute Noodles”, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, facts of C-482 Application No.1355 of 2019 are being taken into consideration.
3. The present C-482 application has been filed for quashing the complaint case being Complaint No.2217 of 2016 dated 11.03.2016 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, along with the summoning/cognizance order dated 27.04.2016, whereby proceedings have been initiated against the applicants for offences under Sections 3(1)(zf)(C)(i) and 3(1)(zz)(v) read with Sections 26(2), 27 and 66 of the FSS Act, punishable under Sections 52 and 59 thereof.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that applicant no.1 is the authorised representative of M/s Nestle India Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at New Delhi, manufacturing facility at Punjab and depot at Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, engaged in manufacture and distribution of food and nutritional products throughout the country; that, on 30.05.2015, the Food Safety Officer/respondent no.2 collected samples of “MAGGI 2-Minute Noodles” and forwarded one part thereof to the Food Analyst, Rudrapur, while the remaining samples were deposited before the Designated Officer, Udham Singh Nagar along with Form VI; that, the Food Analyst, Rudrapur, vide report dated 14.08.2015 bearing No.51/SDFTL/May/15-USN, opined that the sample was “misbranded” and “unsafe”, allegedly being in contravention of Sections 3(1)(zf)(c)(i) and 3(1)(zz)(v) of the FSS Act; that, on the basis of the aforesaid report, sanction for prosecution was accorded on 24.02.2016 and consequently Complaint No.2217 of 2016 came to be instituted on 11.03.2016 against the vendor M/s S.K. Agencies as accused no.1 and the applicant-company as accused nos.2 and 3. It is contended that the applicant-company has been arrayed twice in the same complaint, once through its depot at Rishikesh and again as manufacturer through its Punjab manufacturing unit; that, thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur took cognizance and issued process vide order dated 27.04.2016.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the Food Safety and Standards Authori
