FSSA, 2006 Overrides IPC In Food Adulteration Cases; Police Cannot Register FIR Under S. 272/273 IPC: Rajasthan High Court - 2025-12-02

Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR in Food Adulteration Case, Cites Overriding Effect of FSSA Over IPC

JAIPUR: The Rajasthan High Court, reinforcing a crucial legal principle, has quashed an FIR registered for food adulteration, ruling that the special provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) override the general provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In a significant order delivered on November 19, 2025, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand allowed a petition filed by Ravi S/o Subhash Chand, setting aside the entire criminal proceedings initiated against him by the Dholpur Police under both the FSSA and the IPC. The court held that for offences related to food adulteration, prosecution must proceed under the FSSA, and a parallel police investigation under the IPC is not maintainable.

---

Background of the Case

The case originated from FIR No.160/2022, registered at Police Station Sadar Dholpur. The petitioner, Ravi, was accused after food articles seized from him were found to be adulterated and incorrectly branded upon testing. Consequently, the police booked him under Sections 272 (adulteration of food or drink intended for sale), 273 (sale of noxious food or drink), and 420 (cheating) of the IPC, along with Sections 26(2)(i) and 59(i) of the FSSA, 2006. Following the investigation, a charge-sheet was also filed.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings, arguing that the police action was legally untenable.

Arguments at the Bar

Mr. Mayank Gupta , counsel for the petitioner, argued that the FSSA, 2006 is a special and comprehensive legislation enacted to deal with food-related offences. He contended that Section 89 of the FSSA gives the Act an overriding effect over any other law inconsistent with it. Citing recent Supreme Court judgments in Ram Nath Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) and Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of West Bengal (2024) , he asserted that simultaneous prosecution under both the FSSA and the IPC for the same offence is impermissible.

Conversely, Mr. Amit Punia , the Public Prosecutor, defended the police's actions. He submitted that since the allegations constituted offences under the IPC, the police were well within their rights to register an FIR, conduct an investigation, and file a charge-sheet.

Court's Rationale and Reliance on Apex Court Precedents

Justice Dhand observed that the legal issue at hand was "no more res integra" (an issue no longer open to doubt) as it had been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court. The court heavily relied on the precedent set in the Ram Nath and Sushil Kumar Gupta cases.

The judgment highlighted the Supreme Court's finding that the FSSA provides exhaustive substantive and procedural provisions for dealing with unsafe food. The High Court quoted the Apex Court's conclusion from the Ram Nath case:

> "We have no manner of doubt that by virtue of Section 89 of the FSSA, Section 59 will override the provisions of Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. Therefore, there will not be any question of simultaneous prosecution under both the statutes."

The court further noted that the offence under Section 59 of the FSSA is, in fact, more stringent than those under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC.

Additionally, the court addressed the charge under Section 420 (cheating) of the IPC. It found that the FIR lacked the essential ingredients of cheating, as there were no allegations of dishonest inducement or of causing undue loss or gain. "Where the contents of FIR do not satisfy the definition of cheating as defined under Section 415 IPC, no offences under Section 420 IPC can be said to be made out," the court reasoned.

The Final Verdict

Based on the settled legal position, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No.160/2022 and all proceedings arising from it.

However, the court clarified that this order does not absolve the petitioner of all liability. It granted liberty to the designated Food Safety Officer and the concerned authority to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions of the FSSA, 2006. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned Food Safety Officer for compliance.