CRL.M.C. 7013/2022 & CRL.M.C.328/2023 Page 1 of 15

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 27.7.2026

Pronounced on :06.08.2026

Uploaded on: 06.08.2026

+ CRL.M.C. 7013/2022 AND CRL.M.A. 27147/2022, CRL.M.A.

26291/2024, CRL.M.A. 26292/2024

DHARMENDRA HANSRAJ KOTAK & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Rajesh Batra, Ms. Sonia Kukreja,

Mr. Rohit Chandra & Ms. Sadhika

Kochhar, Advs.

versus

STATE OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP

+ CRL.M.C. 328/2023 AND CRL.M.A. 1303/2023, CRL.M.A.

26293/2024, CRL.M.A. 26294/2024

DHARMENDRA HANSRAJ KOTAK & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Rajesh Batra, Ms. Sonia Kukreja,

Mr. Rohit Chandra & Ms. Sadhika

Kochhar, Advs.

versus

STATE OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

JUDGMENT

MADHU JAIN, J.

1.The present petitions raise substantially identical questions of fact

and law and arise out of prosecutions initiated under the provisions of the

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “FSS

CRL.M.C. 7013/2022 & CRL.M.C.328/2023 Page 2 of 15

Act”) concerning samples ofMAGGI Noodleslifted during the nationwide

sampling exercise undertaken in the year 2015. Since the issues involved in

both matters are common and the reliefs sought are substantially similar,

both petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common

judgment.

2.The petitioners invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the

criminal complaints instituted by the Department of Food Safety, the orders

taking cognizance and issuing summons passed by the learned Trial Court,

the subsequent orders dated 30.11.2022 whereby the discharge applications

were dismissed as not maintainable, and all consequential proceedings

arising therefrom.

3.As the factual background and legal issues involved in both petitions

are largely common, the relevant facts are noticed hereinafter.

4.The prosecution case, as set out in the complaints, is that during the

month of May, 2015, Food Safety Officers of the Department of Food

Safety, Government of NCT of Delhi, collected samples ofMAGGI

Noodlesfrom different retail outlets situated within the National Capital

Territory of Delhi. The samples were drawn after following the procedure

prescribed under the FSS Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Notices in

the prescribed forms were issued, panchnamas were prepared, the samples

were divided into four counterparts, duly packed, sealed and labelled, and

one counterpart in each case was forwarded to the Food Analyst for analysis

while the remaining counterparts were deposited with the Designated

Officer.

CRL.M.C. 7013/2022 & CRL.M.C.328/2023 Page 3 of 15

5.In Complaint Case No. 47/2015, the sample was lifted on 25.05.2015

from M/s Gupta Store, Shop No. 47, Gole Market, Connaught Place, New

Delhi, where accused Raj Kumar Gupta was stated to be the Food Business

Operator and partner of the establishment. In Complaint Case No. 56/2015,

the sample was lifted on the same date from the retail establishment of

accused Virender Narula. In both cases, the samples consisted of sealed

packets ofMAGGI Noodleswhich were available for sale for human

consumption.

6.Upon analysis, the Food Analyst, by reports dated 02.06.2015,

opined that the samples were “unsafe” within the meaning of the FSS Act

on the ground that the lead content in themasala tastemakerexceeded the

prescribed maximum limit of 2.5 ppm. In the other complaint, it was further

alleged that the product was also misbranded on account of the declaration

“No Added MSG” appearing on the label.

7.Copies of the Food Analyst's reports were thereafter forwarded to the

respective Food Business Operators as well as to the manufacturer, M/s

Nestlé India Limited, in terms of Section 46(4) of the FSS Act read with

the applicable Rules. According to the prosecution, none of the accused

exercised their right to seek analysis of the sample by the Referral Food

Laboratory within the prescribed period.

8.During the course of investigation, the Food Safety Department

traced the chain of distribution of the food article. It was alleged that the

sampled product had been supplied by M/s Dhingra Brothers, a partnership

firm, through its responsible partners, and had been manufactured by M/s

Nestlé India Limited. The prosecution further alleged that the nominated

CRL.M.C. 7013/2022 & CRL.M.C.328/2023 Page 4 of 15

representatives of the manufacturing company, as well as the persons stated

to be responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the supplier firm and the retail

establishments, were liable for prosecution under the provisions of the FSS

Act.

9.Upon completion of the investigation, the Designated Officer

forwarded the case records to the Commissioner, Department of Food

Safety, Government of NCT of Delhi, who accorded consent under Section

30(2)(e) of the FSS Act for institution of prosecution. Thereafter, separate

complaints came to be instituted before the learned Trial Court alleging

violations of Sections 20, 26 and 27 of the FSS Act, punishable under

Section 59 thereof.

10.By orders dated 06.11.2015 and 11.01.2016 respectively, the learned

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, upon perusing the complaints

and the accompanying material, found sufficient grounds to proceed against

the accused persons and directed issuance of summons for the offences

alleged under the FSS Act.

11.During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Trial

Court, the accused persons moved applications seeking discharge.

However, by separate orders dated 30.11.2022, the learned Trial Court

dismissed the discharge applications as not maintainable.

12.Aggrieved by the institution of the complaints, the orders taking

cognizance and issuing summons, the subsequent orders dismissing the

discharge applications, and the continuation of the criminal proceedings,

the petitioners have preferred the present petitions invoking the inherent

jurisdiction of this Court.

CRL.M.C. 7013/2022 & CRL.M.C.328/2023 Page 5 of 15

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

13.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that

the present petitions deserve to be allowed as the continuation of the

criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It is

submitted that the prosecution is founded solely upon the reports of the

Food Analyst, which no longer survive in view of the subsequent

developments and judicial pronouncements concerning the testing

ofMAGGI Noodles.

14.It is submitted that the very basis of the prosecution ceased to exist

after the judgment dated 13.08.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High

Court, whereby the ban imposed onMAGGI Noodleswas set aside.

Learned counsel submits that the Bombay High Court categorically held

that the laboratories whose reports formed the basis of the ban did not

satisfy the statutory requirements under the FSS Act, inasmuch as they were

neither NABL accredited nor notified by the Food Authority under Section

43 of the Act. Consequently, the reports issued by such laboratories were

held to be invalid.

15.Learned counsel further submits that, pursuant to the directions of

the Bombay High Court, fresh samples ofMAGGI Noodleswere drawn and

tested by three accredited and notified laboratories. It is contended that all

such reports uniformly recorded that the lead content in the product was

within the prescribed permissible limit of 2.5 ppm, thereby establishing the

safety of the product.

16.It is further submitted that proceedings relating to the same

controversy also came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

CRL.M.C. 7013/2022 & CRL.M.C.328/2023 Page 6 of 15

wherein samples were directed to be analysed by the Central Food

Technological Research Institute (CFTRI), Mysore, a Referral Food

Laboratory under the FSS Act. Learned counsel submits that the reports

furnished by CFTRI also found the lead content to be within the prescribed

limits, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while disposing of the proceedings,

directed that the CFTRI reports would constitute the basis for adjudication.

17.Learned counsel submits that the Special Leave Petition preferred by

the FSSAI against the judgment of the Bombay High Court also came to be

dismissed, thereby rendering the findings recorded by the Bombay High

Court final. It is further submitted that the National Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”), while deciding the consumer

proceedings arising out of the same controversy, also held that there was no

evidence to establish thatMAGGI Noodleswas unsafe and accepted the

reports of the Referral Food Laboratory as conclusive.

18.Learned counsel submits that under Section 46(4) of the Food Safety

and Standards Act read with the applicable Rules, the report of the Referral

Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the Food Analyst. It is contended

that once the Referral Food Laboratory has reported that the product

conforms to the prescribed standards, the reports of the State laboratories

lose all evidentiary value and no prosecution can continue solely on the

basis of such superseded reports.

19.It is further submitted that the Food Laboratory, Government of NCT

of Delhi, on whose report the present prosecution has been instituted, was

neither a notified laboratory under Section 43 of the FSS Act nor accredited

by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration

CRL.M.C. 7013/2022 & CRL.M.C.328/2023 Page 7 of 15

Laboratories (NABL). Accordingly, it is contended that the report relied

upon by the prosecution is itself without legal sanctity and cannot constitute

the basis for launching criminal proceedings.

20.Learned counsel also submits that the consent granted by the

Commissioner under Section 30(2)(e) of the FSS Act for institution of

prosecution is liable to be held invalid, inasmuch as it was accorded on the

basis of reports which had already been declared unsustainable by the

Bombay High Court. Consequently, the very foundation of the complaints

as well as the orders taking cognizance stands vitiated.

21.It is lastly submitted that in view of the subsequent findings returned

by the Referral Food Laboratory, the Bombay High Court, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and the NCDRC, no useful purpose would be served by

permitting the criminal prosecutions to continue. The continuation of the

proceedings, according to the petitioners, would amount to an abuse of the

process of the Court. It is, accordingly, prayed that the complaints, the

summoning orders, the orders dismissing the discharge applications and all

consequential proceedings be quashed.

SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF THE STATE:

22.Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that the present

petitions are devoid of merit and deserve to be dismissed. It is submitted

that the complaints were instituted after following the procedure prescribed

under the FSS Act and sufficient material existed before the learned Trial

Court for taking cognizance and issuing summons against the petitioners.

23.Learned APP submits that the sampling proceedings were conducted

CRL.M.C. 7013/2022 & CRL.M.C.328/2023 Page 8 of 15

strictly in accordance with the provisions of the FSS Act. The Food Safety

Officers visited the respective premises, purchased samples of the food

articles in their original sealed condition after payment of consideration,

prepared the statutory documents including Form VA and Panchnama, and

sealed the samples in accordance with the prescribed procedure. It is

submitted that the petitioners participated in the sampling proceedings and

signed all the contemporaneous documents without raising any objection.

24.It is further submitted that one counterpart of the sample was duly

forwarded to the Food Analyst for analysis, while the remaining

counterparts were preserved in accordance with law. The Food Analyst,

upon examination of the samples, reported that the lead content exceeded

the prescribed maximum limit of 2.5 ppm. In one of the complaints, the

Food Analyst also reported that the product was misbranded for making

misleading declarations on the label relating to “No Added MSG” and for

non-disclosure of Monosodium Glutamate.

25.Learned APP submits that copies of the Food Analyst's reports were

duly supplied to all the Food Business Operators, suppliers and the

manufacturing company in terms of Section 46(4) of the Act, thereby

affording them the statutory opportunity of seeking referral analysis by the

Referral Food Laboratory. Despite such opportunity, none of the petitioners

exercised the statutory remedy available under the Act. It is contended that

having consciously chosen not to avail the statutory remedy at the relevant

stage, the petitioners cannot now seek to question the Food Analyst's

reports in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

26.Learned APP further submits that the contention of the petitioners

CRL.M.C. 7013/2022 & CRL.M.C.328/2023 Page 9 of 15

regarding the Food Laboratory, Government of NCT of Delhi not being an

accredited or notified laboratory is misconceived. It is submitted that under

Section 98 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, the existing State Food

Testing Laboratories were permitted to continue discharging their functions

until laboratories were formally notified under Section 43 of the Act.

Reliance is placed upon the communications issued by the FSSAI dated

05.07.2011 and 06.09.2018, whereby State Food Laboratories were

permitted to continue functioning during the transitional period. It is further

submitted that the Government of NCT of Delhi subsequently obtained

NABL accreditation for its laboratory on 09.05.2019. Therefore, merely

because NABL accreditation was granted subsequently would not

invalidate the reports issued during the transition period.

27.Learned APP submits that the subsequent judgments of the Bombay

High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the National Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission relied upon by the petitioners do not

automatically nullify the present prosecutions. According to the

respondents, those proceedings arose in a different factual context

concerning the nationwide recall and ban imposed onMAGGI Noodlesand

cannot be treated as determinative of the individual criminal prosecutions

arising from independent samples collected by the Food Safety Officers in

Delhi.

28.It is further submitted that the reports of the Food Analyst constituted

sufficient material for the learned Trial Court to take cognizance. At the

stage of issuance of summons, the Court is only required to examine

whether aprima faciecase exists and is not expected to conduct a

CRL.M.C. 7013/2022 & CRL.M.C.328/2023 Page 10 of 15

meticulous appreciation of the evidence or determine the correctness of the

allegations.

29.Learned APP lastly submits that the pleas raised by the petitioners

involve disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence during

trial, including the evidentiary value of the Food Analyst's report and the

effect of the subsequent laboratory reports relied upon by the petitioners.

Such issues cannot appropriately be adjudicated in proceedings under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petitions be

dismissed and the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court be

permitted to continue in accordance with law.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

30.I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the

learned APP for the State and have carefully examined the record.

31.The present petitions invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the

complaints and the summoning orders arising out of the alleged non-

conformity of samples ofMaggi Noodlescollected during May, 2015.

Though the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly,

it is equally well settled that where continuation of criminal proceedings

would amount to abuse of the process of law or where the very foundation

of the prosecution has ceased to exist, the High Court would be justified in

exercising its inherent jurisdiction. Reference may be made toState of

Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, andRajiv Thapar v.

Madan Lal Kapoor,(2013) 3 SCC 330.

32.The prosecution in the present complaints is founded entirely upon

CRL.M.C. 7013/2022 & CRL.M.C.328/2023 Page 11 of 15

the Food Analyst's reports declaring the sampled product to be "unsafe" on

account of alleged excess lead content. These reports constitute the sole

basis for the institution of the complaints and the subsequent summoning

orders.

33.However, the controversy surroundingMaggi Noodlesdid not

remain confined to isolated prosecutions. Following the nationwide

sampling exercise undertaken pursuant to the directions issued by the

FSSAI in May, 2015, the regulatory action taken against the product

became the subject matter of extensive judicial scrutiny before the Bombay

High Court.

34.The Bombay High Court, in its judgement inNestle India Limited v.

Food Safety and Standards Authority ofIndia.,2015 SCC OnLine Bom

4713, after examining the statutory scheme under the Food Safety and

Standards Act, held that laboratories conducting analysis under the Act

must satisfy the twin statutory requirements of being NABL accredited as

well as notified by the Food Authority under Section 43 of the Act. The

Court found that the reports forming the basis of the regulatory action

suffered from serious legal infirmities and consequently set aside the

impugned ban orders. The Court further directed fresh sampling and testing

through duly accredited and notified laboratories.

35.The matter thereafter travelled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. During

the pendency of the proceedings, the Supreme Court accepted the

consensus of the parties that the samples should be tested through CSIR-

CFTRI, Mysore, a Referral and notified laboratory possessing the requisite

expertise under the Food Safety and Standards Act. The Supreme Court

CRL.M.C. 7013/2022 & CRL.M.C.328/2023 Page 12 of 15

accordingly directed that the samples be forwarded to CFTRI for fresh

scientific evaluation.

36.Thereafter, by order dated 13.01.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

directed CFTRI to specifically examine whether the lead content and

glutamic acid levels were within the permissible parameters and to clarify

whether the testing undertaken also covered Monosodium Glutamate

(MSG). Recognizing the importance of a scientifically reliable

determination, the Court further directed that if additional samples were

required, fresh samples be collected from the godown of FSSAI itself in the

presence of both parties.

37.Ultimately, while disposing of Civil Appeal No.14539 of 2015

on 03.01.2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the CFTRI Report

should constitute the basis of adjudication before the National Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission and accordingly set aside the interim

directions previously issued by the NCDRC. Importantly, the Supreme

Court consciously chose not to substitute its own findings on scientific

issues but directed that the adjudicatory authority should evaluate the

dispute on the basis of the report of the Referral Laboratory obtained under

the directions of the Court itself.

38.The proceedings before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission thereafter culminated in dismissal of the complaint instituted

by the Union of India. The adjudicatory proceedings thus concluded after

taking into consideration the reports generated by CFTRI pursuant to the

orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

39.These developments cannot be viewed in isolation. The complaints

CRL.M.C. 7013/2022 & CRL.M.C.328/2023 Page 13 of 15

before this Court arise out of the very same nationwide sampling exercise

undertaken during May, 2015. The allegations, the alleged analytical

deficiencies and the scientific issues are substantially identical. The

prosecution does not rely upon any independent evidence of adulteration

apart from the Food Analyst's reports generated during the original

sampling exercise.

40.Once the original analytical reports became the subject matter of

judicial scrutiny and fresh testing was directed through a Referral Food

Laboratory recognized under the statute, the evidentiary value of the earlier

reports necessarily stood diluted. The subsequent scientific evaluation

undertaken under the supervision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be

ignored while examining whether continuation of the present criminal

proceedings would serve the ends of justice.

41.The State has contended that the criminal complaints are independent

proceedings and must proceed to trial. This submission, though attractive

at first blush, cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts of the present case.

Criminal proceedings undoubtedly proceed independently. However,

where the very scientific foundation upon which the prosecution rests has

undergone subsequent examination through a process supervised by the

constitutional courts, the High Court cannot remain oblivious to those

developments while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

42.This view also finds support from subsequent judicial

pronouncements. The Himachal Pradesh High Court in its judgement in

Raghu Vakkiyal vs. State of Himachal Prasdesh.,2026:HHC:2022, while

considering criminal prosecutions arising out of the sameMaggi

CRL.M.C. 7013/2022 & CRL.M.C.328/2023 Page 14 of 15

Noodlescontroversy, held that once the issue regarding lead content stood

examined through the CFTRI reports obtained pursuant to the directions of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, continuation of prosecutions founded upon the

earlier State laboratory reports would amount to abuse of the process of

law. The Uttarakhand High Court in it judgement inNestle India Limited

vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another.,2026:UHC:4048, has also taken a

similar view while quashing criminal proceedings arising from the same

nationwide sampling exercise. This Court is in agreement with the

aforesaid reasoning.

CONCLUSION:

43.Having regard to the subsequent orders passed by the Bombay High

Court, the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court resulting in fresh

analysis through CFTRI, the culmination of the proceedings before the

NCDRC and the subsequent decisions rendered by the Himachal Pradesh

and Uttarakhand High Courts, this Court is of the considered view that

permitting the present prosecutions to continue would serve no useful

purpose. The continuation of the complaints would merely compel the

petitioners to undergo a protracted criminal trial despite the very foundation

of the prosecution having substantially eroded.

44.The present case, therefore, falls within the well-recognized

parameters governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section

482 Cr.P.C. The continuation of the impugned complaints would amount

to abuse of the process of Court and would not advance the cause of justice.

45.Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The complaints, the

CRL.M.C. 7013/2022 & CRL.M.C.328/2023 Page 15 of 15

impugned summoning orders dated 06.11.2015 and 11.01.2016, and all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

MADHU JAIN

(JUDGE)

AUGUST 6, 2026/P