PRAVEENKUMAR R JAIN Vs. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed these writ petitions to quash the criminal complaint in C.C.No.43 and 44 of 1995 on the file of the first respondent. THE said complaints have been filed by the second respondent herein.

(2.) THE second respondent had inspected the Government Hospital, Dindigul and took the vials of two injections, one is Oxeteracycline I.P. and the other is Adernaline I.P. on 28.10.93 for test. After following the formalities, he had sent the samples to Government Analyst for report. By report dated 23.8.94, the Government Analyst had informed that the said medicines are "not of standard quality". THEreafter, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner herein. THE petitioner had sent a reply. It is admi tted, due to his own mistake intyping the address, the replied were not reached the second respondent. THE second respondent filed two complaints in respect of two medicines against the petitioner for violation of Section 18(a) (i) and 18-B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. THE petitioner has filed these writ petitions to quash both the criminal complaints pending trial on the file of the first respondent.

(3.) WHEN I asked the counsel for the petitioner as to why he cannot invoke section 482 Cr. P.C. which empowers the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings, he replied that the apex court has held that it is open to the accused to file a petition for quashing either under section 482 Cr. P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further contended that Section 482 Cr.P.C. confers a discretionary power on the court and the discretionary power cannot be termed as alternative remedy and he referred to a judgment reported in V. Vellaswamy v. I.G. of Police, Madras (AIR 1982 SC 82). Since I am not dismissing the Writ petitions on the ground of alternative remedy available under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I am not discussing anything with regard to the right of the petitioner to invoke section 482 Cr.P.C. In a later judgment reported in State of Haryana v. CH. Bhajan Lal (1992 L.A. (Crl.) 257) the Supreme Court has held that the High Court can exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash Criminal complaint. Hence the writ petition can be maintained.