RADICO REMEDIES Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition, under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.3246 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Petitioners herein are arrayed as A.1 and A.2 in the said case.

(2.) 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate against A.1 and A.2 under Sec. 32 for violation of Sec. 18 (a) (i) punishable under Sec. 27 (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, 'the Act, 1940") and further A.2 failed to produce,/ non-disclosure of, information under Sec. 18B and 22(1) (cca) of the Act, 1940 and thus punishable under Sec. 28A and 22 (3) of the Act, 1940. The allegations, in brief, of the complaint are as follows.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that A.1 is a sole proprietary firm and the subject transactions took place in the year 2016; that the agreement was entered in the month of April, 2016 between the Managing Director of Andhra Pradesh Medical Services Infrastructure Development Corporation (APMSIDC), on one hand, and father of petitioner No.2 Dr.K.S.Sawhney, who was the Sole Proprietor of the firm, for supply of certain drugs. He further submits that copy of Certificate of Registration goes to show that A.1 is a Proprietary Concern and father of 2nd petitioner happens to be Managing Partner of the said concern. He further submits that there was an agreement between APMSIDC and father of 2nd petitioner for supply of drugs, and after the death the said Dr.K.S.Sawhney on 18/5/2019, 2nd respondent resorted in filing the present complaint impleading 2nd petitioner as A.2, who happens to be son of deceased Managing Partner and took over management of the firm, and that the present complaint has been filed as a counter blast to the civil litigation initiated by A.1 firm for recovery of the valid legal dues from the Andhra Pradesh Medical Services Infrastructure Development Corporation (APMSIDC). He further submits that in view of the aforesaid reasons, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court.