Uttarakhand High Court
C528/272/2026 on 26 February, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
pSL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C-528 No.272 of 2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for
the applicant.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. along
with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3. Present C-528 application has been
filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the
summoning/cognizance order dated
21.11.2023 passed in Special Sessions Trial
No. 84 of 2023, under Sections 17(c),
17A(A)(f), 17B(d)(e), 18(a)(vi), 18(c), and 18A
of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, by
the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Roorkee, District Haridwar, along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would
submit that an F.I.R. was lodged on
03.03.2020 by the respondent department
upon receiving information regarding the
functioning of a unit allegedly manufacturing
spurious medicines; that, after completion of
investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted a charge-sheet against the
applicant under Sections 419, 420, 274,
275, and 276 I.P.C., and under Sections 28,
17, 27, 18(a)(vi), and 18c of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940, as well as Section 63 of
the Copyright Act; that, learned court below
took cognizance on the said charge-sheet,
and the matter was subsequently committed
to the learned Sessions Court.
5. It is further submitted that thereafter,
on the same set of allegations forming the
basis of the aforesaid F.I.R., the respondent
department instituted a complaint case
against the present applicant and other co-
accused persons. The learned trial court,
vide order dated 21.11.2023, took
cognizance on the said complaint and
summoned the applicant for hearing on
admission of the case.
6. Learned counsel contends that the
present case amounts to double jeopardy, as
the applicant is being prosecuted twice on
the same cause of action. It is further
submitted that the learned Magistrate
passed the summoning order without due
application of judicial mind and that non-
bailable warrants have also been issued
against the applicant in the complaint case.
According to the applicant, the entire
proceedings are unsustainable in the eyes of
law.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel
submits that both an F.I.R. and a complaint
can proceed in respect of the same offence,
as contemplated under Section 210 Cr.P.C.,
and therefore, the impugned proceedings do
not suffer from any legal infirmity.
8. Learned State counsel prays for and is
granted four weeks’ time to file a counter
affidavit.
9. In view of the above, this Court is of the
opinion that the matter needs deliberation
10. List this matter after four weeks.
11. As an interim measure, it is directed
that further proceedings of Special Sessions
Trial No. 84 of 2023, pending before the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Roorkee, District Haridwar, shall remain
stayed till the next date of listing.
12. Stay Application (IA No. 1 of 2026)
stands disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
26.02.2026
Mamta
