Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87219 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15944 of 2025 Applicant :- Hasan @ Hasan Ayaz Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Srivastava,Priyanka Srivastava,Shashank Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State. 2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of S.T. no. 8 of 2017 (State vs. Hasan) arising out of charge sheet dated 22.09.2017 in Case Crime no. 441 of 2017 under sections 18, 18A, 18(c), 27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Section 419, 420 of IPC, PS- Kotwali Mandi, District Saharanpur as well as summoning order dated 26.09.2017 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge Court no. 7, Saharanpur pending in court of learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court no. 7, Saharanpur. 3. It is the case of the applicant that certain confiscation has been made by concerned police team headed by Drug Inspector which resulted into lodging FIR at Case Crime no. 441 in the year 2017 and later on considering the mistake which is apparent on face of record, since it is provided under Section 32 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 that no Court can take cognizance unless complaint is not preferred for offences described in the said Act, an specific complaint has been preferred on dated 05.09.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that for same cause of action on one hand, FIR has been preferred whereupon the charge sheet has been filed and cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court of Additional District Judge, Court no. 7, Saharanpur by way of summoning the applicant and on other hand Complaint Case is also pending before learned court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no. 8, Saharanpur. 5. At the time of closing arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the proceeding whatsoever has been initiated shall be subject to crystal clear provision mentioned under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 wherein proceeding has already been initiated against the applicant and as such the instant proceedings arising out of Case Crime no. 441 of 2017 is not maintainable in the eye of law. 6. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the order passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no. 7, Saharanpur is in the strict parameters of the procedure available at law but at the same time admitted that the provisions contained under provision of Section 28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is binding over the prosecution wherein proceeding has already been initiated. 7. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances and after hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, one thing is crystal clear that in compliance of Section 28 of Act of 1940, once the criminal complaint has already been preferred against the applicant, there is hardly any justification for pursuing Session Trial no. 8 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime no. 441 of 2017 under sections 18, 18A, 18(c), 27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and sections 419, 420 IPC, as such entire proceeding arising of aforesaid Session Trial no. 8 of 2017 is hereby set aside. 8. The application stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad