Uttarakhand High Court
C528/668/2026 on 28 April, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
No.
Date
directions and COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C-528 No.668 of 2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Rahul D. Kharmate and Ms.
Menka Tripathi, learned counsel for
the applicants.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A.
for the State.
3. Present C-528 application has
been filed seeking quashing of the
complaint, the summoning order dated
29.04.2025, and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, pending
against the applicants before the Court
of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Case No.
466 of 2025; that, a further prayer has
been made to stay the proceedings of
the aforesaid case during the pendency
of the present application.
4. Learned counsel for the
applicants would submit that a
complaint has been instituted by the
Food Safety Officer, Pauri Garhwal
under the Food Safety and Standards
Act, 2006 alleging therewith that
during inspection, the Food Safety
Officer collected samples of certain
food articles from the premises of the
applicants and sent the same for
laboratory analysis and as per the
report of the notified laboratory, the
pesticide residue in the sampled
articles was found to be in excess of
the permissible limits prescribed under
the Food Safety and Standards
(Contaminants, Toxins and Residues)
Regulations, 2006. On the basis of the
said report, the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal took
cognizance and issued summons vide
order dated 29.04.2025 under Sections
26(1), 26(2)(i), 27(1), 27(2)(C),
3(1)(zz)(xii) of the Food Safety and
Standards Act, 2006.
5. Learned counsel for the
applicants further submits that the
complaint, as framed, is not
maintainable in law; that, the
applicant no.1 has been prosecuted in
his capacity as a in-charge
quality/operations of the firm;
applicant no.2 has been impleaded as
the nominee/in-charge of the
company; and applicant no.3 is also
described as a nominee of the
partnership firm; that, all the accused
persons have been prosecuted only on
account of their association with the
firm/company, and no specific role or
overt act has been attributed to them
in their individual capacities.
6. It is further submitted that the
company/firm, being the principal
offender, has not been impleaded as an
accused in the complaint; that, in the
absence of the company being
arraigned as an accused, vicarious
liability cannot be fastened upon the
partners, nominees, or persons in
charge of, and responsible for, the
conduct of its business. In this regard,
reliance is placed on the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anita
Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P)
Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661, wherein it has
been held that for fastening vicarious
liability, arraignment of the company
as an accused is imperative.
7. Having considered the
submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the applicants, this Court
finds that the issue raised requires
consideration.
8. Learned State counsel prays for
and is granted four weeks’ time to file
a counter affidavit.
9. In the meanwhile, as an interim
measure, it is directed that further
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 466
of 2025, pending before the Court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Pauri Garhwal, shall remain stayed till
the next date of listing.
10. List this case on 08.06.2026.
11. Learned State counsel shall file
counter affidavit in the meantime.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
28.04.2026
Mamta
