Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125993 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38694 of 2024 Applicant :- Raghvendra Singh Alias Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ray Sahab Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for seeking quashing of chargsheet dated 11.01.2023 and summoning order dated 17.01.2023 along with entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No.1364 of 2023 (State Vs. Raghvendra Singh Alias Rahul and others), arising out of Case Crime No.253 of 2022, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 274, 275, 34 IPC and Section 18(a)(i), 18(c), 27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, P.S. Kotwali, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Allahabad. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that an FIR bearing Case Crime No.253 of 2022, under Section 1419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 274, 275, 34 IPC and Section 18(a)(i), 18(c), 27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was lodged by opposite party no.2 against applicant in pursuance of alleged incident dated 21.10.2022 wherein chargesheet has been preferred on dated 11.01.2023 whereupon cognizance of offence has also been taken by learned court concerned. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that Section 32 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 bars the prosecution of applicant on a police report submitted in pursuance of the FIR hence cognizance taken on its basis by learned court concerned, may be liable to be quashed as the cognizance of offence can only be taken on a complaint if preferred by an authorized person. Learned counsel for applicant also submitted that after lodging of the present FIR, a complaint bearing Complaint Case No.12202 of 2024 (State Vs. Raghvendra Singh Alias Rahul and others), under Section 18(c)/27(b), 18A/28, 18(a) (i)/27(b), 27(C), 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 in pursuance of same cause of action has also been preferred at the behest of State and as such, applicant cannot be permitted to face two trial for the same offence. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that Government Order dated 31.01.2018 has also been issued in light of the order dated 02.08.2018 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Crl. Mis. Writ Petition No.20338 of 2018 that only complaint will be filed for the offence committed under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as per Section 32 of the said Act. 4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application but did not dispute the arguments raised by learned counsel for applicant. 5. Upon consideration of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that in accordance with Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, only an authorized person is competent to institute a complaint for offences under the said Act, and no cognizance can be taken by the Court on the basis of a police report filed pursuant to an FIR. Furthermore, subsequent to the registration of the FIR, a complaint case has also been instituted by the State based on the same set of facts, which is presently pending adjudication, and in which the applicant has already been summoned. This clearly indicates that the applicant is being subjected to two parallel proceedings for the same alleged offence, thereby attracting the bar of double jeopardy. The doctrine of double jeopardy is a well-established principle of criminal law, which mandates that no person shall be prosecuted or punished twice for the same offence. 6. In view thereof, chargsheet dated 11.01.2023 and summoning order dated 17.01.2023 along with entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No.1364 of 2023 (State Vs. Raghvendra Singh Alias Rahul and others), arising out of Case Crime No.253 of 2022, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 274, 275, 34 IPC and Section 18(a)(i), 18(c), 27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, P.S. Kotwali, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Allahabad, are hereby quashed. 7. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad