Disputed defences concerning licensing, knowledge, and role require trial, not quashing under Section 482.

The petitioners, who were associated with the marketing company, sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 1875 of 2022 for an alleged offence under Section 28B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Following the Supreme Court’s order permitting the trial court to reconsider compliance with Section 202 CrPC if raised, the Magistrate re-registered the case and issued process; the petitioners challenged the summons and continuation of proceedings.

The manufacturer and its representative, Accused Nos. 1 and 2, later pleaded guilty.

Whether the Magistrate’s issuance of process against the petitioners, who were outside the Magistrate’s territorial jurisdiction, violated the mandatory inquiry requirement under Section 202 CrPC.

Whether the proceedings should be quashed because the complaint did not specifically allege the petitioners’ involvement and their defences concerning the manufacturing licence, knowledge, and respective roles.

Section 202(1) CrPC requires a Magistrate to postpone issuance of process and conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation where the accused resides beyond the Magistrate’s jurisdiction; the requirement is mandatory, as explained in Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Ltd., relying on Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj.

Section 204 CrPC permits issuance of process when sufficient grounds for proceeding exist.

The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, may be exercised to prevent abuse of process, but disputed factual defences ordinarily require trial.

The Court considered the earlier proceedings, including the coordinate Bench’s finding that prima facie material indicated the accused persons’ involvement and that testing had established the presence of banned formulations.

It treated the petitioners’ reliance on the licence, asserted lack of knowledge, bona fide belief, contractual allocation of responsibility, and lack of participation in manufacture or quality control as disputed factual matters for trial, rather than grounds for quashing.

On Section 202, the Court noted the Supreme Court’s direction allowing reconsideration of compliance and concluded that the Magistrate had considered the complaint, recorded statements, and the result of an inquiry or investigation, if any, before finding sufficient grounds to proceed.

It therefore found no abuse of process in issuing summons.

Both criminal petitions were dismissed.