Supreme Court Quashes Proceedings Over Non‑Speaking Summons, Holds Magistrate Must Record Reasons

A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih heard the appeal arising from a challenge to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the trial court’s summoning order. The appellants, M/s JM Laboratories and others, contested the issuance of process in C.C. No. 1051 of 2023 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kurnool.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court order and the trial court’s summoning order on the short ground that the Magistrate issued process without assigning any reasons. The Bench observed that summoning of an accused was “a serious matter” and reiterated that a Magistrate must apply mind to the facts and law before issuing process. The summoning order itself was non‑speaking; as recorded in the judgment, the Magistrate’s order merely stated: “Whereas your attendance is necessary to give evidence in a charge Sec.18(a)(i) r/w Sec. 16(i)(a) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 … You are hereby requested to appear in person before the Hon’ble Court …” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “This Court has clearly held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. It has been held that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The Magistrate is required to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof and as to whether that would be sufficient for proceeding against the accused.” Relying on a consistent line of precedents including Pepsi Foods Ltd., Sunil Bharti Mittal, Mehmood Ul Rehman, Krishna Lal Chawla and the Court’s recent decision in INOX Air Products, the Bench held that an order issuing process without recorded reasons was liable to be quashed.

Background

The dispute arose from a complaint by the Drugs Inspector, Kurnool Urban, which led to C.C. No. 1051 of 2023. It was alleged that on 7 September 2018 a sample of MOXIGOLD‑CV 625 (Amoxycillin & Potassium Clavunate Tablets IP), Batch No. BT170059F (Mfg. November 2017; Expiry April 2019) manufactured by the petitioner company, was taken for analysis. The Government Analyst, by Analytical Report in Form‑13 dated 15 December 2018, declared the sample “Not of Standard Quality” on account of failure in the dissolution test for amoxycillin and clavulanic acid. The Drugs Inspector filed the complaint, and the trial court, by order dated 19 July 2023, summoned the accused to appear on 10 August 2023.

The appellants sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, raising multiple contentions including limitation under Section 468(2) CrPC and alleged non‑compliance with Section 202 CrPC. The High Court dismissed the petition by its order dated 4 October 2023. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard counsel for both sides but found it unnecessary to adjudicate all submissions because the summoning order was a non‑speaking order. The Court reiterated settled law that while detailed reasons were not required, the Magistrate’s order must reflect application of mind; absence of such reasons or a manifestly non‑speaking order warranted quashing. The Bench followed and applied its recent ruling in INOX Air Products and other precedents that mandated that the order issuing process must state the basis of the prima facie conclusion. In consequence, the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned High Court judgment and the trial court’s summoning order, and it quashed the proceedings arising therefrom. Pending applications stood disposed.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 127 Case Title: M/s. JM Laboratories and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri H.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Smt. Prerna Singh, Advocate