Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/4010/2018 of SUSHIL SOOD & ORS Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 27 July 2026
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-4010-2018 Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 SUSHIL SOOD & ORS ... Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-4010-2018 Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 SUSHIL SOOD & ORS
... Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab.
**** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the criminal complaint bearing No. COMA/92/2017 dated 15.09.2017 (Annexure P-1) titled as “State of Punjab Versus Avinash Chander” pending in the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Abohar along with the summoning order dated 15.09.2017 (Annexure P-2) and all other proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-Drug Inspector, Fazilka inspected the premises of M/s Krishan Surgical, opposite Bus Stand, Abohar, District Fazilka on 15.10.2013 where Avinash Chander, proprietor was found present. Samples of Yovamox, Walacort and Meftspas were taken. The said three medicines were sent for analysis. It was found that Yovamox was not of standard quality vide a report of the Government Analyst, Punjab dated 12.03.2014. Thereafter, a second sample was sent for analysis to the Central Laboratory, Calcutta which was found to be not of standard quality. The petitioner No.3 was found to be the company that manufactured the medicines.
3. The instant complaint came to be filed on 15.09.2017 and the summoning order was passed on the same day.
4. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the maximum sentence of imprisonment that can be imposed upon the petitioners being manufacturers is three years and therefore, the complaint could have been filed within 03 years of the first report dated 12.03.2014, though the instant complaint has been filed on 15.09.2017 i.e. after three and a half years. Therefore, in view of the Judgment in M/s Cheminova India Ltd. & Anr. Versus State of Punjab & Anr, 2021(3) RCR (Criminal) 750, Ajay Kumar & Anr. Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-640-2021, and Parveen Kumar Dhaka & Ors. Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-50880-2019, the complaint and the summoning order are liable to be quashed.
5. The counsel for the State does not dispute the factual position that the inspection took place on 15.10.2013, that the first test report is dated 12.03.2014 and that the complaint is dated 15.09.2017.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Admittedly, the sentence that can be imposed upon the petitioners is not exceeding 03 years and therefore, in terms of the Section 468(2) Cr.P.C, the complaint could have not been filed after 03 years of the commission of the offence. In the present case, the test report of the
Government Analyst, Punjab is dated 12.03.2014 and the complaint and summoning order are dated 15.09.2017.
9. In view of the above discussion, the complaint dated 15.09.2017 (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order dated 15.09.2017 (Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed qua the petitioners.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE July 27, 2026 vishal Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No