Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79364 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15542 of 2025 Applicant :- Radhika Milk And Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Goswami,Pawan Giri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Shri Pawan Giri along with Himanshu Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Chandraul, learned AGA for the State. 2. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits, thus, with the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage. 3. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of summoning order dated 05.04.2024, passed by the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar, in Complaint Case no. 10208/2024, (State Vs. Promod Kumar and another), whereby Applicant has been summoned under Sections 26 (2) (ii & i)/51 & 59 (i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, P.S. Dumariaganj, District Siddharth Nagar. 4. The case set out in the present application is that on 31.07.2023 at 12:10 PM, the Food Safety Officer, Dumariaganj, District Siddharth Nagar along with other officers visited and conducted an inspection at the Jai Vaishno Traders, situated at District Siddharth Nagar where they met co-accused, Pramod Kumar and after showing their identity, inspection was done at that shop and infirmities were found as samples of food articles failed to meet these specified para-meters. On being noticed to furnish information, the name of the applicant came to be surfaced as the M/s Jai Vaishno Traders, Dumariaganj, District Siddharth Nagar had purchased the said food items from the applicant. A complaint is stated to have been lodged on 22.03.2024 against the applicant under Section 26 (2) (ii & i)/51 & 59 (i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the applicant has been summoned on 05.04.2024. 5. Questioning the summoning order dated 05.04.2024, the present application has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the summoning order dated 05.04.2024 cannot be sustained even for a single moment, particularly, when it reveals that there has been no application of mind as the applicant has been summoned on mere asking of the complainant as there is no prima facie satisfaction in that regard. Even the sections under which the applicant is being summoned, has not been noticed. He seeks to rely upon the judgment in the case of M/s. JM Laboratories vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 127. According to him, he summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders. 7. Learned AGA on the other hand submits as per the instructions submits that offences have been committed by the applicant as apparent from the complaint but according to him, the summoning order has not been passed in correct perspective. He submits that there has been no prima facie satisfaction recorded in the order. He submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 9. For ready reference, the summoning order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar is quoted hereinunder: " आज यह पररववद पवप हहकर पपश हहआ। अवलहककत। दजर रजजसटर हह। अकभययक जररए सममन कदननकव 30.05.2024 कप जलए तलब हह।" 10. A perusal of the summoning order dated 05.04.2024 which would clearly reveal that the same is non-speaking, unreasoned and even does not disclose application of mind with regard to the offences found to be attracted on the prime facie basis. The summoning order is three line and even there is nothing but suggest that it has been passed with due application of mind. Even the sections have not been mentioned. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court has the occasion to consider the said aspect in the case of JM Laboratories (supra), para 9 whereof is quoted hereinunder.- "9. In the present case also, no reasons even for the namesake have been assigned by the learned Magistrate. The summoning order is totally a non- speaking one. We therefore find that in light of the view taken by us in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh", and the legal position as has been laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Central Bureau of Investigation, Mehmood U Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others and Krishna Lal Chawla and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, the present appeal deserves to be allowed." 11. Considering the submissions so made across the bar and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that the summoning order dated 05.04.2024, passed by the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar, in Complaint Case no. 10208/2024, (State Vs. Promod Kumar and another), is set aside. 12. The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law. 13. For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 30.05.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition. 14. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 A. Prajapati Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad