MANU/HP/0473/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Civil Writ Petition No. 3167 of 2021
Decided On: 14.09.2021
Arpita Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Satyen Vaidya, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Pankaj Bhardwaj, P.P. Chauhan, Munish Thakur and
R.L. Verma, Advocates
For Respondents/Defendant: Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, Rajinder Dogra, Sr.
Addl. A.G., Vinod Thakur, Shiv Pal Manhans, Hemanshu Misra, Additional Advocates
General and Bhupinder Thakur, Deputy Advocate General
Case Note:
Narcotics - Release - Section 37 of NDPS Act - Whether there is ground to
issue writ in nature of Mandamus directing official respondents to protect life
and liberty petitioner, her family and safety of their property? - Held, in
present case, FIR has been registered at Mattewal in Punjab, scope of
investigation would be in relation to seizure of drugs recovered in pursuance
thereto - Petitioner has not sought any relief in present petition with respect
to legality of FIR 51 registered at Mattawan, in Punjab - Once legality of FIR
is not under challenge, simpliciter prayer for release of her husband by
petitioner cannot be maintained - Merely because petitioner has alleged
detention of her husband to be illegal will not suffice - Mohnish Mohan is in
judicial custody by virtue of remand orders passed by Court of competent
jurisdiction from time to time - No material has been placed on record to
suggest even remotely that petitioner or her daughter have ever remained
under any threat as alleged by them in petition - Respondents in their status
reports have not shown any inclination to array petitioner or her daughter as
accused in case - Apprehension, thus expressed by petitioner appears to be
just a pretext to prepare cause of action for filing of instant petition - Cause
of action so pleaded by petitioner in respect of herself and her daughter has
been found to be baseless and without any substance, therefore, no inference
is called for in respect of prayers made regarding petitioner and her daughter
- As regards Mohnish Mohan, it has already been observed that material on
record prima facie implicates him in offences under provisions of NDPS Act -
Intent of petitioner in filing instant petition is also not beyond shadow of
doubt - Evidently, Mohnish Mohan has not made any effort to seek bail from
Court of competent jurisdiction, for reasons that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS
Act would impede his effort - In case, Mohnish Mohan has not made any effort
for his release on bail, invocation of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court
only for purpose his release can only be termed to be an abuse of process of
law - As per stand of respondents, eighteen persons including Mohnish Mohan
have been arrayed as accused in FIR 51 and most of them have been arrested
- It is also contended by respondents that whole circle of drug dealers/drug
peddlers has been exposed and police has been successful in completing circle

03-03-2024 (Page 1 of 12) www.manupatra.com Ajay Gaind

of drug peddlers - In light of above discussion, this court find no merit in
petition and same is dismissed with no orders as to costs. [25],[26],[27],
[28],[29],[30], [31],[32],[35], [34],[39]
ORDER
Satyen Vaidya, J.
1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the official respondents to
protect the life and liberty the petitioner, her family and safety of their
property, which is under direct attack and threat of the Punjab Police, who have
illegally detained her husband, seized the factory and have taken away
medicine worth lacs without any authority of law;
(ii) For the issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents to immediate
release husband of the petitioner who is in illegal detention of the Punjab
Police;
(iii) For the issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents to ensure that
the accounts books of the factory are not destroyed by Punjab Police to build up
a false case against her husband and for directing immediate unlocking of the
factory and release of manufactured drugs illegally seized by the Punjab Police;
(iv) For issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents to stay further
proceedings against the petitioner and her daughter till the pendency of the
present petition.
2 . Petitioner is the wife of Mohnish Mohan who is one of the accused arrayed in FIR
number 51(for short, "FIR 51") dated 18.5.2021 registered under Sections 22 & 29 of
the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "NDPS Act"), at
Police Station, Mattewal, District Amritsar (Rural), Punjab and is presently in judicial
custody. She has approached this Court on the premise that Mohnish Mohan has been
illegally arrested and she also apprehended her as well as her daughter's arrest.
3. As per the case of the petitioner, her husband runs a business in the name and style
of Unique Formulations registered as an "MSME" at Paonta Sahib District Sirmour, H.P.
and has obtained licenses from competent authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act
(for short, "D&C Act") and Rules framed thereunder (for short, "D&C Rules") to
manufacture and sell the drugs.
4. The arrest of Mohnish Mohan has been alleged to be in violation of his fundamental
rights. It is stated that the drugs recovered in aforesaid F.I.R. were sold by Unique
Formulations to M/S. Mansi Medicos, New Delhi against proper invoices. It is further
contented by petitioner that after the receipt of consignment of medicines by the
consignee, Unique Formulations or Mohnish Mohan were not responsible, if the drugs
supplied by them had found their way out.
5 . Petitioner has further alleged that the raid conducted by Punjab Police, in the
premises of Unique Formulations, was absolutely illegal and unauthorized.
Manufactured drugs worth more than Rupees fifty lakhs were alleged to have been
seized illegally along with books of accounts including bills/demand orders/supply
orders etc. The conduct of the raiding party comprising of police officials and Drug

03-03-2024 (Page 2 of 12) www.manupatra.com Ajay Gaind

Inspectors has been assailed as an act of sheer high handedness.
6 . Accusation of false implication of Mohnish Mohan for malafide and extraneous
motives have also been made. It is alleged that police did not follow the mandatory
provisions of Section 42 and 50 of NDPS Act while conducting raid and seizure in the
premises of Unique Formulations.
7 . On notice, the respondents have contested the allegations and claim of the
petitioner. During the course of proceedings in the instant petition, status reports have
been filed from time to time on behalf of responsible officers of respondents and
thereby It has been brought to the notice of this Court as under:
7.1. F.I.R. 51 was registered on a secret information, which was found to be
correct and huge quantity of approximately 50,000 (fifty thousand) tablets of
Tramadol Hydrochloride Tablets IP Clocidol-100 SR were seized (for short,
"seized drugs") from three persons, namely, Sameer Kumar, Suraj Kumar and
Gurmukh Singh within the jurisdiction of PS Mattewal, Punjab.
7.2. The seized drugs were found to have been manufactured by Unique
Formulations, Paonta Sahib, Himachal Pradesh vide batch No. UFT-042 and
UFT-043 and sold to M/S. Mansi Medicos, New Delhi. It was also found that
seized drugs, in fact, were marketed through PB Pharmaceuticals, Raj Tower 3rd
Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
7.3. On this lead, the factory premises of Unique Formulations was searched on
27.05.2021 by Punjab Police by associating officials of Drug Departments of
Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. It was noticed that the manufacturing process
was being carried out without the supervision of technical staff as required.
Mohnish Mohan who was present in the factory premises, disclosed his identity
as the Manager and Incharge of factory. As per him, the drugs seized by police,
during investigation of F.I.R. No. 51 of 2021, were sold by him to Mansi
Medicos, New Delhi, through Ranu Bhargav, but when the police made Mohnish
Mohan to call Ranu Bhargav on mobile phone, said Ranu Bhargav denied having
placed any order with Unique Formulations or having received the drugs in
question. A huge stock of finished goods was found kept in different sections of
the factory, which was in violation of the rules. As per report of the Drug
Inspector, Himachal Pradesh a huge quantity of more than nine lakh tablets was
found stored in the factory premises of Unique Formulations in unauthorized
manner. Thus, violations of license as well as provisions of "D&C Act" and
"D&C Rules" were found against Unique Formulations. Assistant Drug
Controller-cum-Licensing Authority, Himachal Pradesh also visited the spot and
issued stop production and show cause notice under the D&C Act.
7.4. The investigation team on the basis of available material arrayed Mohnish
Mohan as accused in FIR No. 51 and he was placed under arrest on 28.5.2021.
7.5. Further investigation revealed that PB Pharmaceutical was a non-existent
entity. Neither there was any building by the name of Raj Tower nor was any
business premises of PB Pharmaceuticals in existence in Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
7.6. During investigation, Police is stated to have recorded the statements of
Mohnish Mohan under Section 67 of NDPS Act.
7.7. It has also been disclosed that after registration of FIR 51, approximately

03-03-2024 (Page 3 of 12) www.manupatra.com Ajay Gaind

 30,61,000 intoxicating tablets/capsules were seized by the Narcotic Control
Bureau, Delhi Zonal Unit which resulted in registration of a case vide CR No.
XIII/227/DZU/2021 dated 2.06.2021. The seizure included 92,000 Tramadol
Hydrochloride Tablets 100 mg IP Clocidol, 1,23,800 Tramadol Tables (Batch No.
UFT-33), 1,86,400 Tarmadol tables (Batch No. UFT-32) and 2,370 bottles of
Codeine based syrup manufactured by Unique Formulations.
7.8. In addition another case vide F.I.R. No. 119 dated 14.07.2021 under
Section 22/61/85 of NDPS Act has been registered at Police Station Lalru,
District SAS Mohali, Punjab against Ashok Kumar and Kala Ram. The drugs
recovered in said case were also found to have been manufactured by Unique
Formulations and Mohnish Mohan has also been arrayed as an accused by Lalru
Police. In addition, a case under NDPS Act has also been registered at Paonta
Sahib Police Station against Mohnish Mohan vide FIR No. 66/2021 dated
30.5.2021.
8 . We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Additional
Advocate General for the respondents and have also gone through the records.
9. During the proceedings of the case, no material has been placed on record or even
suggested on behalf of the petitioner which may lend credence to her alleged
apprehension of being arrested along with her daughter in FIR 51. Similarly, nothing
has been brought on record to show that the petitioner had ever been threatened of any
illegal violations against the properties belonging to the petitioner or her family.
10. The entire stress of the submissions made for petitioner was on the alleged illegal
detention of Mohnish Mohan. It has been emphasized that Mohnish Mohan sold the
manufactured drugs to authorized distributor i.e. Mansi Medicos in lawful manner,
therefore, no offence was committed by him much less any office under the NDPS Act.
1 1 . During the course of hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner on
asking of the Court produced two empty packing boxes of Tarmadol Prolonged Release
Tablets IP Roldal-Tab and Tramadol Hydrochloride Tablets IP Clocidol-100 SR
respectively. It has been clearly printed on the empty packing box of Tramadol
Hydrochloride Tablets IP Clocidol-100 SR "marketed by PB Pharmaceuticals, Raj Tower
3rd Floor Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016". Whereas, the Investigating agency has found
the address and entity of PB Pharmaceuticals to be fake.
12. On a query to learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing, it has
been represented that "PB Pharmaceuticals" was not marketing agent of Unique
Formulations and it was introduced as an agent of Mansi Medicos by Ranu Bhargav
while placing the order. According to petitioner PB Pharmaceutical is a marketer of M/S.
Mansi Medicos and not of Unique Formulations and thus no culpability can be fastened
on Unique Formulations or Mohnish Mohan. Further contention of the petitioner is that
label design is decided and approved by purchaser/distributor/wholesaler and in the
present case, the same has been approved by Ranu Bhargav.
13. The explanation provided on behalf of the petitioner is not at all convincing for
more than one reason. In case PB pharmaceutical was not the agent of Unique
Formulations, why its name was printed on the packing box of the drugs manufactured
by it. It has also been revealed during the investigation, as brought to the notice of this
Court, that at the time of the search conducted in the factory premises of Unique
Formulations, number of empty boxes with PB Pharmaceutical's name printed on them
as marketing agent were found. The petitioner has no explanation to account for

03-03-2024 (Page 4 of 12) www.manupatra.com Ajay Gaind

existence of such packaging material in factory premises of Unique Formulations.
1 4 . The drug Tramadol is a Psychotropic substance mentioned at entry 110Y in the
schedule appended to NDPS Act.
15. Section 8 of the NDPS Act prohibits certain operations which include prohibition to
produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume,
import inter State, export, inter State, import into India, export form India or transship
any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes
and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of NDPS Act or the rules
or orders made thereunder and in a case where any such provision, imposes any
requirement by way of licence, permit or authorization also in accordance with the
terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorization.
1 6 . Section 22 of NDPS Act makes manufacturing, possession, sale, purchase,
transport, import inter-state, export interstate or use of any psychotropic substance in
contravention of any provision of NDPS Act or any rule or order made or condition of
licence granted thereunder punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term not less
than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and also with fine not less than
rupees one lakh but which may extent to rupees two lakhs in the case the quantity is
commercial.
17. Section 80 of the NDPS Act lays down that the provision of NDPS Act or the Rule
made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940 or the Rules made thereunder.
18. Rule 65A of NDPS Rules provides that no person shall sell, purchase, consume or
use any psychotropic substance except in accordance with Drugs and Cosmetics Rules,
1945.
1 9 . Rul e 67 of NDPS Rules further provides that no consignment of psychotropic
substance shall be transported, imported inter-State or exported inter-State unless such
consignment is accompanied by a consignment note in Form 6 appended to these rules
and in the manner as provided thereunder.
2 0 . Condition number 2 of the licences to manufacture drugs held by Unique
Formulations reads as under:
"2. The licence authorizes the sale by way of wholesale dealing and storage for
sale by the licensee of the drug manufactured under the licence subject to the
conditions applicable to licence for sale."
21. An amendment has been carried out in the D&C Rules vide notification published in
the Gazette of India on 11.02.2020. One of the amendments made thereby is in Rule 2
of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. Existing clause (ea) has been re-lettered as clause
(eb) and before clause (eb) as so re-lettered, following clause has been inserted,
namely:-
'(ea) "Marketer" means a person who as an agent or in any other capacity
adopts any drug manufactured by another manufacturer under an agreement for
marketing of such drug by labeling or affixing his name on the label of the drug
with a view for its sale and distributions'.
In the said rules, after rule 84-C, the following rules have been inserted, namely:-

03-03-2024 (Page 5 of 12) www.manupatra.com Ajay Gaind

 "84D. Agreement for marketing:-No marketer shall adopt any drug
manufactured by another manufacturer for marketing of such drug by labeling
or affixing his name on the label of the drug with view for its sale and
distribution without an agreement as referred to in clause (ea) of Rule 2.
84E. Responsibility of marketer of the drugs:-Any marketer who sells or
distributes any drug shall be responsible for quality of that drug as well as
other regulator compliances with the manufacturer under these rules."
Further in the said rules, in Rule 96, after sub-clause (xii) of clause (1), the following
sub-clause has been inserted:-
"(xiii) The name of the marketer of the drug and its address, in case the drug is
marketed by a marketer:
Provided that if the drug and is contained in an ampoule or a similar
small container, it shall be enough if only the name of marketer is
shown.".
The above noted amendments have been made effective from 1.3.2021.
2 2 . The amended rules, as noticed above, explicitly provide that in case of
manufactured product to be marketed through marketer there has to be a pre exiting
agreement between the manufacture and marketer. The rules do not provide for the
requirement of distributor/wholesaler in the said process.
2 3 . Petitioner has placed reliance on certain documents vide which the drugs in
question were allegedly supplied by Unique Formulations to M/S. Mansi Medicos, Delhi
in May 2021. It is thus clear that the transaction in question was made after above
noticed amendments came into effect.
24. The non-compliance of above noted provisions of law, is evident from the material
on record. Unique formulations had no authority to sell the drugs except by way of
wholesale but the drugs were found in bulk in the hands of unauthorized persons.
Similarly, when there is no entity in the name of PB Pharmaceuticals, the requisite
agreement between manufacturer and the marketer would not have existed.
25. The argument of the petitioner that PB Pharmaceutical, in fact, was the marketing
agent of Ms. Mansi Medicos does not hold good because it is the packaging box of the
drugs manufactured by Unique Formulation that contained the printed name of PB
Pharmaceutical as marketer. That being so, it is difficult to agree with the contention of
the petitioner.
2 6 . The petitioner alleges to have sold the drugs to Ms. Mansi Medicos, a licensed
wholesaler/distributor and has tried to persuade this Court to believe that PB
Pharmaceutical was the marketer of M/S. Mansi Medicos. We have already expressed
ourselves by making observations hereinabove that plea of the petitioner is not worth
credence at this stage. There is sufficient material to show prima facie violation of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, by Unique Formulations and Mohnish Mohan, therefore, it
cannot be said that the husband of the petitioner is entitled for a clean chit in the entire
episode. Prima facie it cannot be said that implication of Mohnish Mohan in FIR 51 is
without any justifiable reasons.
27. The umbrella of protection under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act and the rules framed

03-03-2024 (Page 6 of 12) www.manupatra.com Ajay Gaind

thereunder, which the petitioner claims for her husband, vanishes, the moment the
provisions contained under the said Act and Rules are not complied with or infringed or
violated by the holder of the license. Merely holding a license under the Drugs and
Cosmetic Act and the Rules framed thereunder does not provide immunity from the
rigors of the applicability of the NDPS Act and Rules framed thereunder.
28. In addition to above, it cannot remain unnoticed that case registered vide F.I.R. No.
51 dated 18.05.2021 at Police Station Mattewal, Amritsar (Rural) is not solitary instance
where the drugs manufactured by Unique Formulations have been found in bulk in
unauthorized and illegal possession of person, who have been booked under NDPS Act.
Narcotic Control Bureau Delhi Zone, has also seized huge quantity of drugs
manufactured by Unique Formulations and so has been done by officials of Police
Station Lalru in Punjab vide FIR No. 119 dated 14.07.2021. Another F.I.R. at Police
Station Paonta Sahib under the NDPS Act vide No. 66 of 2021 dated 30.05.2021 is also
pending investigation, in which also the petitioner is one of the accused.
29. In the case in hand the F.I.R. has been registered at Mattewal, District Amritsar
(Rural) in Punjab, the scope of investigation would be in relation to the seizure of drugs
recovered in pursuance thereto. The seized drugs were manufactured by Unique
Formulations and Mohnish Mohan being owner of such concern has been arrayed as
accused probably with the aid of Section 29 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under:-
"29. Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy.-(1) Whoever abets, or is
a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable under this
Chapter, shall, whether such offence be or be not committed in consequence of
such abetment or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, and
notwithstanding anything contained in section 116 of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860), be punishable with the punishment provided for the offence.
(2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence,
within the meaning of this section, who, in India abets or is a party to the
criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place without and beyond
India which--
(a) would constitute an offence if committed within India; or
(b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic
drugs or psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions
required to constitute it such an offence the same as or analogous to
the legal conditions required to constitute it an offence punishable
under this Chapter, if committed within India."
30. The petitioner has not sought any relief in the present petition with respect to the
legality of F.I.R. 51 dated 18.05.2021 registered at Mattewal, District Amritsar Rural in
Punjab. Once the legality of F.I.R. is not under challenge, the simpliciter prayer for
release of her husband by petitioner cannot be maintained.
31. Merely because petitioner has alleged the detention of her husband to be illegal will
not suffice. Mohnish Mohan is in judicial custody by virtue of remand orders passed by
the Court of competent jurisdiction from time to time.
32. No material has been placed on record to suggest even remotely that the petitioner
or her daughter have ever remained under any threat as alleged by them in the petition.
Respondents in their status reports have not shown any inclination to array the

03-03-2024 (Page 7 of 12) www.manupatra.com Ajay Gaind

petitioner or her daughter as accused in the case. The apprehension, thus expressed by
petitioner appears to be just a pretext to prepare cause of action for filing of the instant
petition. The cause of action so pleaded by petitioner in respect of herself and her
daughter has been found to be baseless and without any substance, therefore, no
inference is called for in respect of the prayers made regarding petitioner and her
daughter. As regards Mohnish Mohan, it has already been observed hereinabove that the
material on record prima facie implicates him in offences under the provisions of NDPS
Act
33. The intent of the petitioner in filing the instant petition is also not beyond shadow
of doubt. Evidently, Mohnish Mohan has not made any effort to seek bail under the
provision of 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure from the Court of competent
jurisdiction, for the reasons that the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act would impede his
effort. In case, Mohnish Mohan has not made any effort for his release on bail under
Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, invocation of extra ordinary jurisdiction of
this Court only for the purpose his release can only be termed to be an abuse of process
of the law.
34. As per stand of respondents, eighteen persons including Mohnish Mohan have been
arrayed as accused in F.I.R. 51 dated 18.05.2021 and most of them have been arrested.
It is also contended by respondents that whole circle of drug dealers/drug peddlers has
been exposed and the police has been successful in completing the circle of the drug
peddlers.
35. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and
others. With due deference to the law laid down in the said judgment, the same is
clearly distinguishable on facts in present case. In Arnab Manoranjan Goswami's case
Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the question of release of appellant therein as
interim measure in a petition filed before Bombay High Court for quashing the F.I.R. in
the said case. In the present case, there is no challenge to the F.I.R. as such. The
judgment noticed hereinabove will otherwise not serve the cause of petitioner as the
prima facie complicity of petitioner in the instant case has been found to exist for
offences under Section 22 and 29 of NDPS Act. The quantity involved in the case is
commercial for which very severe punishment, as noticed above, is prescribed. The
rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act also stare at the face of petitioner.
36. In the recent judgment passed by three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 330 of 2021 titled as M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and other, it has been concluded as under:-
Conclusions:
23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final
conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would
be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or
"no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High
Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the
accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the investigation
or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C.,
while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the

03-03-2024 (Page 8 of 12) www.manupatra.com Ajay Gaind

criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, our final conclusions are as under:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in
Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable
offence;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences;
iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence
of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the
Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare
cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of
death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made
in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial
stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather
than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State
operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not
to tread over the other sphere;
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would
result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial
process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of
offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to
its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which
must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence
reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in
progress, the court should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the

03-03-2024 (Page 9 of 12) www.manupatra.com Ajay Gaind

 conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not
deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of
process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer
finds that there is no substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be
considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the
known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but
conferment of wide power requires the court to be more
cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the
court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit,
regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-
restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid
down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and
Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the
FIR/complaint;
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged
accused and the court when it exercises the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the
allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable
offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits
whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a
cognizable offence and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the
FIR;
xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the
aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High
Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim
order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the
quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an
interim order should not require to be passed routinely,
casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation
is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire
evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court
should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to
arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused
should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section
438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall
not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to
arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the
investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till
the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C.,
w h i l e dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

03-03-2024 (Page 10 of 12) www.manupatra.com Ajay Gaind

 xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the
opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of
interim stay of further investigation, after considering the
broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief
reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is
required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the
application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can
consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing
such an interim order.
xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of
"no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid
parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by
"no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive
steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad
which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.
3 7 . Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record a compendium of
judgments passed in cases of Hema vs. State through Inspector of Police, Madras
MANU/SC/0017/2013 : 2013 (10) SCC 192, Babubhai vs. State of Gujrat & Others
MANU/SC/0643/2010 : 2010 (12) SCC 254, Darbara Singh vs. State of H.P.
MANU/SC/0737/2012 : 2012 (10) SCC 476, Rafiq Ahmad @ Rafi vs. State of U.P.
MANU/SC/0959/2011 : 2011 (8) SCC 300, Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya Vs. State of
Gujrat, Alchemist Ltd. & another vs. SBI & others and Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union
of India MANU/SC/0672/2014 : 2014 (9) SCC 329.
Last two judgments noted above, are relatable to territorial jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, this Court has
entertained the petition and the same is being decided on the merits. As regards the
other judgments cited on behalf of petitioner, we are at pains to observe that none of
them is relevant for issues involved in the present petition.
38. As far as the issues involved in the present case are concerned, reliance can be
placed on judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sanjeev V.
Deshpande MANU/SC/0688/2014 : 13 SSC 2014, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paras 25 and 26 has held as under:-
"25. In other words, DEALING IN narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is
permissible only when such DEALING is for medical purposes or scientific
purposes. Further, the mere fact that the DEALING IN narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances is for a medical or scientific purpose does not by itself
lift the embargo created under section 8(c). Such a dealing must be in the
manner and extent provided by the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders made
thereunder. Sections 9 and 10 enable the Central and the State Governments
respectively to make rules permitting and regulating various aspects
(contemplated under Section 8(c), of DEALING IN narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances.
26. The Act does not contemplate framing of rules for prohibiting the various
activities of DEALING IN narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Such
prohibition is already contained in Section 8(c). It only contemplates of the

03-03-2024 (Page 11 of 12) www.manupatra.com Ajay Gaind

 framing of Rules for permitting and regulating any activity of DEALING IN
narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances."
3 9 . In light of above discussion, we find no merit in the petition and the same is
dismissed with no orders as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are
also disposed of accordingly.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

03-03-2024 (Page 12 of 12) www.manupatra.com Ajay Gaind