2026:HHC:21884 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.988 of 2024 Judgment reserved on: 25.05.2026 Date of Decision: 04.06.2026 _______________________________________________________ Meenakshi Jain & another …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dinkar Bhaskar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.109/2022, dated 08.09.2022, under Sections 420, 467,468, 471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station, Kala Amb, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequential proceedings pending adjudication in the competent Court of law. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Rajnish 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:21884 Maniktala, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Dinkar Bhaskar, learned counsel representing the petitioners, is that though issue sought to be raked up through the FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, already stands adjudicated by this Court vide judgment dated 12.04.2018, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.MMO No.137 of 2017, titled Maman Chand Jain vs. State of Himachal Pradesh(Annexure P-2), judgment dated 10.07.2024, passed by this Court in Cr.MMO No.401 of 2018, titled Maman Chand Jain vs. State of Himachal Pradesh through Principal Secretary (Home) and another(Annexure P-5), judgment dated 01.08.2022, passed in Cr.MMO No.433 of 2019, titled Meenakshi Jain and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another (Annexure P-10) and judgment dated 22.12.2023 passed in CWP No. No.4391 of 2023, titled Aniketh Jain vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another (Annexure P-16), but yet respondents No.2 and 3 have lodged the FIR, sought to be quashed, which according to the petitioners, is nothing, but a malicious abuse of the process of law. 3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties, are that FIR came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.3, Ms. Garima Sharma, Assistant Drugs Controller, Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, who alleged that petitioner 3 2026:HHC:21884 No.2, Sh. Maman Chand Jain, GPA of M/s Vardhan Pharma, duly authorized as GPA by Smt. Meenakshi Jain, proprietor of afore firm, had applied for grant of drugs manufacturing licence in the office of Drugs Licensing Authority, Shimla vide letter dated 10.11.2004 alongwith affidavit, Form 24 and Form 27, for which he had submitted the requisite documents of competent person, including attested copies of degree and mark-sheets of Meenakshi Jain, petitioner No.1, to be endorsed as Analytical Chemist. Complainant alleged that as per the records, licence came to be granted on 10.12.2004 in favour of M/s Vardhman Pharma in Form Nos.25 and 28 and name of Smt. Meenakshi Jain was endorsed as Analytical Chemist on the licence on the basis of her B. Pharmacy Degree. However, during preparation of the reply to be filed before this Court, it was observed/ noticed that Smt. Meenakshi Jain had submitted the mark-sheets alongwith degree of Pharmacy issued by Gulbarga University. However, on scrutiny of aforesaid documents, some overwriting and difference in registration numbers were observed, whereafter documents were sent to the Vice-Chancellor, Gulbarga University as well as to the Registrar, Karnataka State Pharmacy Council, Bengaluru vide letter No. HFW-H (Drugs) ADC-1/2022/08, dated 23.08.2022 by mail, reply to which was received from the Registrar, Karnataka State Pharmacy Council, vide letter No. KSPC/016/2022023, dated 25.08.2022 through mail dated 26.08.2022, stating therein that the documents of 4 2026:HHC:21884 Smt. Meenakshi Jain were found to be incorrect and fake as per supportive documents received from the Principal, RRK Samiti’s College of Pharmacy, Naubad, Bidar. Complainant alleged that Mr. M.C. Jain, petitioner No.2, authorized signatory of M/s Vardhman Pharma, had submitted the fake and incorrect degree and mark- sheets of Smt. Meenakshi Jain, to get her name endorsed in the manufacturing drugs license as Analytical Chemist and as such, necessary action, in accordance with law, be taken against the petitioners. 4. In nutshell, case of the petitioners is that by lodging the FIR, sought to be quashed, an attempt has been made by the petitioners to re-open the issue, which has already been settled by this Court vide various judgments, as detailed hereinabove. It has been also alleged that since petitioners herein had highlighted the issue of corruption against the officials of Drugs Controller, Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, and the matter ultimately came to be investigated by the CBI, a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioners. It also came to be argued at the behest of the petitioners that at no point of time, degree of B. Pharmacy issued by Gulbarga University was submitted by petitioner No.2 for endorsing the name of petitioner No.1, Smt. Meenakshi Jain, as Analytical Chemist on the licence, rather, at the time of grant of licence, Diploma 5 2026:HHC:21884 in Pharmacy issued by Directorate of Technical Education, Haryana, Chandigarh was submitted. 5. Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners, attempted to argue that since repeatedly frivolous complaints lodged at the behest of the respondent- Department came to be quashed by this Court, while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, coupled with the fact that petitioners herein had lodged complaints with regard to corruption in the respondent-Department, respondent No.2, against whom personal allegation of corruption have been levelled, has proceeded to lodge a frivolous complaint to wreak vengeance and as such, this Court, while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may quash the instant proceedings. He submitted that since case lodged on the basis of FIR, sought to be quashed, is bound to fail in terms of the judgments dated 12.04.2018, passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.MMO No.137 of 2017, titled Maman Chand Jain vs. State of Himachal Pradesh(Annexure P-2), judgment dated 10.07.2024, passed by this Court in Cr.MMO No.401 of 2018, titled Maman Chand Jain vs. State of Himachal Pradesh through Principal Secretary (Home) and another(Annexure P-5), judgment dated 01.08.2022, passed in Cr.MMO No.433 of 2019, titled Meenakshi Jain and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another (Annexure P-10) and judgment dated 22.12.2023 passed in CWP 6 2026:HHC:21884 No. No.4391 of 2023, titled Aniketh Jain vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another (Annexure P-16), no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR sought to be quashed is permitted to sustain, rather that would unnecessarily put the petitioners to the ordeal of protected trial, which is otherwise bound to fail. 6. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while refuting the aforesaid submissions made at the behest of the petitioners, submitted that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings has no connection, whatsoever with the earlier cases/prosecution launched by the department against the petitioners. He submitted that bare perusal of the judgments annexed with the petition nowhere suggests that issue with regard to correctness/validity of the degree in Pharmacy submitted by the petitioners at the time of issuance of licence ever came to be adjudicated by this Court, rather factum with regard to petitioners’ having procured licence on the basis of forged degree in Pharmacy came to the knowledge of the department while preparing reply to the earlier petitions filed at the behest of the petitioners. He submitted that statutory provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules 1945 framed thereunder clearly provide that head of the testing unit shall possess a degree in medicine or science or pharmacy or pharmaceutical chemistry of a university recognized for this purpose and shall have experience in the testing of drugs, which in the opinion 7 2026:HHC:21884 of the licensing authority is adequate. He further submitted that otherwise also, for grant of license in Form 25, applicant is under obligation to provide and maintain adequate staff, premises and laboratory equipment for carrying out tests of the strength, quality and purity of the substance at the testing unit, which shall be separate from the manufacturing unit, and head of the testing unit shall be independent of the head of the manufacturing unit. He further submitted that at the time of issuance of licence, degree in pharmacy granted by Gulbarga University was submitted by the petitioners, however, same has been found to be fake. He further submitted that though no response was received from Gulbarga University, however college from where allegedly petitioner No.1 had studied B. Pharmacy has categorically stated that documents of Smt. Meenakshi Jain verified from the records have been found to be incorrect and fake. He submitted that documents submitted by the petitioners for grant of licence actually belongs to Sh. Ravinder Singh, a student of RRK’S College of Pharmacy, Bidar. He submitted that in earlier cases decided by this Court, issues involved were altogether different and at no point of time this Court ever recorded finding with regard to correctness of B. Pharmacy degree allegedly awarded in favour of petitioner No.1 by Gulbarga University. He submitted that immediately after having come to know the factum of submission of forged and fake degree, FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged against the 8 2026:HHC:21884 petitioners. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that once rules provide for grant of licence on the basis of a B. Pharmacy degree, submission of diploma in pharmacy, if any, issued by the Directorate of Technical Education, Haryana, may not be of any relevance and this Court can safely ignore the same. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that entire case of the petitioners, as has been projected, is that issue with regard to submission of fake degree of B. Pharmacy allegedly granted by Gulbarga University stands adjudicated by this Court and the FIR sought to be quashed has been lodged only with a view to harass and torture the petitioners to wreak vengeance against them. Since petitioners highlighted the issue of corruption in the respondent- Department and pursuant to their complaint, matter was investigated by CBI, it is claimed at the behest of the petitioners that FIR, sought to be quashed is nothing, but a counterblast to the complaints filed by the petitioners against the respondent-department. 8. Before ascertaining the correctness and genuineness of the aforesaid submissions and counter submissions made on behalf of learned counsel representing the parties, this Court deems it necessary to discuss /elaborate the scope and competence of this Court to quash the FIR as well as criminal proceedings, while 9 2026:HHC:21884 exercising power under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 9. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, 1977 (2) SCC 699, held that High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC (now Section 528 of BNSS) is entitled to quash the proceedings, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. 10. Subsequently, in case titled State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while elaborately discussing the scope and competence of High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC( now Section 528 of BNSS) laid down certain principles governing the jurisdiction of High Court to exercise its power. After passing of aforesaid judgment, issue with regard to exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.PC ( now Section 528 of BNSS), again came to be considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case bearing Criminal Appeal No.577 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (CrL.) No. 287 of 2017) titled Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., wherein it has been held that saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to 10 2026:HHC:21884 achieve a salutary public purpose i.e. court proceedings ought not be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, relying upon its earlier judgment titled Rajiv Thapar and Ors v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, reiterated that High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC ( now Section 528 of BNSS), to quash the proceedings against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charge, but such power must always be used with caution, care and circumspection. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court concluded that while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C ( now Section 528 of BNSS), Court exercising such power must be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts and the material adduced on record itself overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. Besides above, the Hon’ble Apex Court further held that material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C 11 2026:HHC:21884 ( now Section 528 of BNSS) to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. In the aforesaid judgment titled Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “22. The proposition of law, pertaining to quashing of criminal proceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) has been dealt with by this Court in Rajiv Thapar & Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor wherein this Court inter alia held as under: (2013) 3 SCC 330, paras 29-30) 29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and 12 2026:HHC:21884 condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- 30.1 Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2 Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. 30.3 Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4 Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 12. It is quite apparent from the bare perusal of aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior 13 2026:HHC:21884 motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him/her due to private and personal grudge, High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC( now Section 528 of BNSS) can proceed to quash the proceedings. 13. Hon’ble Apex Court in case tilted Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Anr, AIR 2019 SC 210, has held that abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation and as such, the abuse of law or miscarriage of justice can be rectified by the court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC( now Section 528 of BNSS). The relevant paras of the judgment are as under: 16. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision invoked by the accused before the High Court is Section 482 Cr. P.C and that this Court is hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Section 482 of Cr.P.C reads as follows:- “482. Saving of inherent power of the High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 17. There is nothing in the words of this Section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court ( G. Sagar Suri and Anr. V. State of U.P. and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 636 (para 7), Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (2013) 10 SCC 591 (para 20). Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can 14 2026:HHC:21884 be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, and the allegations have materialized into a charge sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.” 14. Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr, (2019) 9 SCC 608, has elaborated the scope of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.PC, the relevant para whereof reads as under:- “7. Section 482 is an overriding section which saves the inherent powers of the court to advance the cause of justice. Under Section 482 the inherent jurisdiction of the court can be exercised (i) to give effect to an order under the CrPC; (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of the court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The powers of the court under Section 482 are wide and the court is vested with a significant amount of discretion to decide whether or not to exercise them. The court should be guarded in the use of its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash an FIR or criminal proceeding as it denies the prosecution the opportunity to establish its case through investigation and evidence. These principles have been consistently followed and re-iterated by this Court. In Inder Mohan Goswami v State of Uttaranchal5, this Court observed. “23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts’ powers under Section 482 CrPC. Every High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 24. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute.” 15 2026:HHC:21884 8. Given the varied nature of cases that come before the High Courts, any strict test as to when the court’s extraordinary powers can be exercised is likely to tie the court’s hands in the face of future injustices. This Court in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal6 conducted a detailed study of the situations where the court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and laid down a list of illustrative examples of where quashing may be appropriate. It is not necessary to discuss all the examples, but a few bear relevance to the present case. The court in Bhajan Lal noted that quashing may be appropriate where, (2007) 12 SCC 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 “102. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2). …….… (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” In deciding whether to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482, the Court does not adjudicate upon the veracity of the facts alleged or enter into an appreciation of competing evidence presented. The limited question is whether on the face of the FIR, the allegations constitute a cognizable offence. As this Court noted in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine SC3100 (“Dhruvaram Sonar”) : “13. It is clear that for quashing proceedings, meticulous analysis of factum of taking cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate is not called for. Appreciation of evidence is also not permissible in exercise of inherent powers. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of its inherent powers.” 15. Aforesaid law, clearly stipulates that court can exercise power under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( now Section 16 2026:HHC:21884 528 of BNSS), to quash criminal proceedings, in cases, where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 16. Now being guided by the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court would make an endeavor to examine and consider the prayer made in the instant petition vis-à-vis factual matrix of the case. 17. However, having carefully perused the pleadings as well as documents adduced on record by the petitioners themselves, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners that the issue with regard to submission of forged and fake documents at the time of grant of licence by the petitioners already stands adjudicated by this Court, rather this Court finds that in FIR No.22 of 2016, dated 13.03.2016, it came to be alleged that the premises of M/s Vardhman Pharma, situated at Plot No. 32, Industrial Area, Kala-Amb, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh was raided in the month of September, 2013 and were sealed after seizure of spurious/illegal drugs. Upon the alert issued by the CDSCO, a suspicion was raised that some manufacturing activities were being carried on inside the premises. 17 2026:HHC:21884 18. Careful perusal of afore FIR (Annexure P-1) nowhere suggests that issue with regard to submission of fake and forged degree ever came to be levelled against the petitioners. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case titled Maman Chand Jain vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, passed in Cr.MMO No.137of 2017 quashed the aforesaid FIR vide judgment dated 12.04.2018(Annexure P-2), but bare perusal of aforesaid judgment nowhere suggests that allegation with regard to submission of false and fake degree of B. Pharmacy granted by the Gulbarga University ever came to be decided by this Court, rather this Court proceeded to quash aforesaid FIR on altogether different grounds, reserving liberty to the Drugs Inspector as well as police to initiate fresh investigation and /or register fresh FIR, if required, against the petitioner or his wife or anybody else. 19. Similarly, this Court finds that during the course of the proceedings for quashing of the FIR, as detailed hereinabove, respondent had filed criminal complaint No. 755 of 2017 on the same and similar facts, as were contained in the FIR No.22 of 2016, dated 13.03.2016. Afore complaint came to be laid challenged in Cr.MMO No.401 of 2018 on the grounds(i) that material placed on record would show that no manufacturing activity was ever undertaken by the petitioner; and (ii) there was non-compliance of Section 25 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act. This Court, vide judgment dated 10.07.2024 passed in Cr.MMO No.401 of 2018, titled Maman Chand Jain vs. 18 2026:HHC:21884 State of Himachal Pradesh and another, quashed the complaint (Annexure P-5). 20. Careful perusal of the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court clearly reveals that the issue with regard to submission of fake and forged degree of B. Pharmacy allegedly submitted by the petitioner at the time of grant of licence never came to be discussed/decided by this Court, rather this Court on account of non- compliance of Section 25 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, proceeded to quash the complaint. 21. From the perusal of the documents adduced on record by the petitioners, this Court further finds that apart from complaint No. 755 of 2017, another complaint No. 48/3 of 2016 was also lodged against the petitioners on the ground that on 28.09.2013, while a raid was conducted in the factory premises owned by petitioner No.1, it was found that drugs were being manufactured without licence and sample of drugs which were taken during aforesaid date were found to be not of standard quality. Petitioners herein filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the aforesaid complaint and this Court vide judgment dated 01.08.2022, passed in Cr.MMO No.433 of 2019, not only quashed the aforesaid complaint, but also quashed the consequential proceedings(Annexure P-10). 22. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment, nowhere suggests that the issue with regard to correctness of degree in B. Pharmacy 19 2026:HHC:21884 allegedly submitted by the petitioners at the time of grant of licence ever came to be issued/decided. In the aforesaid case, specific allegation came to be made against the petitioners that once drugs specified in Rule C and C(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules and drugs other than those specified in schedule C and C(1), were being manufactured without there being any valid licence. Petitioner No.1 claimed that she had valid licence to manufacture both type of the drugs, as detailed hereinabove, and as such, no case muchless under Sections 18-1 and 18-C is made out against her. Though, there was no dispute that petitioner had licence to manufacture the drugs, as detailed hereinabove, but licence was valid till 09.12.2009 and thereafter petitioner allegedly applied for renewal of the licence well within time. However, respondent claimed that no prayer ever came to be made by the petitioner for renewal of the licence and as such, at the time of raid, drugs were found to be manufactured without there being any licence. 23. Petitioner No.1, with a view to substantiate her claim with regard to application made by her for renewal, specifically placed reliance upon the communication dated 06.08.2007, perusal whereof reveals that as per discussion with the State Drugs Controller-cum- Licensing Authority, M/s Vardhman Pharma deposited sum of Rs. 3900/- vide challan No.22, dated 6.8.2007 in head of 0210-01- 107-01 for renewal of drug manufacturing licence No.MNB/04/89 and 20 2026:HHC:21884 MB/04/90. It also came to be argued at the behest of learned counsel for the petitioner that initially sum of Rs.11,400/- was deposited on 21.02.2006 with a request to grant permit to manufacture 14 additional items, but since such payer of her was not allowed, however, sum of Rs.3900/-, as advised by the State Drugs Controller- cum-Licensing Authority, was deposited over and above Rs.11,400/- for renewal of the licence, which was otherwise to expire in the month of December, 2009. This Court also found that in afore proceedings, vide communication dated 10.12.2009, whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for renewal of licence was allowed and licence of the petitioner was renewed from 10.12.2009 to 09.12.2014. However, having taken note of the stand taken by the respondents in the reply that no licence was ever renewed and documents placed on record were forged, this Court vide order dated 28.06.2022 passed in Cr.MMO No. 433 of 2019, directed learned Additional Advocate General to file an affidavit disclosing whether action, if any, ever came to be taken against the petitioners for having filed forged/fabricated document, if any. 24. Pursuant to aforesaid order dated 28.06.2022, respondents filed affidavit, reiterating therein that aforesaid documents Annexures P- 5 to 7 placed on record are forged and in that regard FIR No. 70/2013 dated 29.9.2013 under Sections 18(c), 18-B, 18(a) (i) r/w Rule 17, 17-B, 36 AC, r/w sub section 3 of section 21 2026:HHC:21884 22, clause (c) of section 27 and Section 28-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Section 420 of IPC was registered at police Station, Kala Amb. However, subsequently on the basis of the opinion rendered by ADA, Nahan, entire file relating to the case was returned to the Department with the observations that no case muchless under Section 468, 420, 471 and 467 of IPC is made out and Department is advised to file complaint under appropriate provision of law in the competent Court of law. In the aforesaid background, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners, in afore proceedings, argued that since during investigation conducted by the police no case muchless under Section 468, 420, 471 and 467 of IPC was found against the petitioners, respondents are estopped from claiming that documents placed on record with regard to issuance of renewal of licence for a period of five years vide communication dated 10.12.2009 (Annexure P-5 to P-7) are forged and fabricated. 25. This Court in the aforesaid background found that petitioners had valid licence to manufacture the drugs w.e.f.10.12.2009 to 9.12.2014 and as such, proceeded to quash the complaint bearing No. 48/3 of 2016 alongwith consequential proceedings. 26. Besides above, this Court finds that vide communication dated 16.04.2022 (Annexure P-15), application dated 16.03.2022 filed by Mr. Aniketh Jain(Proprietor) of M/s Dutch Formulation for grant of 22 2026:HHC:21884 Drugs manufacturing licence in the premises situated at Plot No.32,Industrial Area, Kala Amb, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh came to be rejected. However, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22.12.2023 passed in CWP No. 4391 of 2023, titled Aniketh Jain vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another (Annexure P-16), quashed the aforesaid communication and directed the respondent No.2 to proceed with the application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with Rule 79 of the 1945 Rules and take an expeditious decision thereupon. If the aforesaid judgment is read in its entirety, this Court is not persuaded to accept the submissions made at the behest of learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners that issue with regard to submission of forged and fake degree by the petitioners for grant of licence was decided in afore proceedings. 27. FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged on 08.09.2022 after disposal of Cr.MMO No.433 of 2019, titled Meenakshi Jain vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, whereby this Court proceeded to quash complaint No.48/3 of 2016. As has been observed hereinabove, in afore proceedings as well as other proceedings, as have been noticed hereinabove, issue with regard to submission of forged and fake degree of B. Pharmacy allegedly issued by Gulbarga University was never decided, rather as per case of the respondent, factum with regard to submission of forged and fake degree by petitioner No.1 at the time of 23 2026:HHC:21884 grant of licence in favour of M/s Vardhman Pharma, owned by petitioner No.2 came into the knowledge of the department, while preparing reply to the earlier proceedings initiated at the behest of the petitioners. 28. Since bare perusal of the allegations contained in the FIR sought to be quashed clearly reveals that petitioner had applied for grant of Drugs Manufacturing Licence in the office of Drugs Licensing Authority, Shimla vide letter dated 10.11.2024, enclosing therewith degree of B. Pharmacy issued by Gulbarga University and same was not found to be issued by afore university and same was found to be fake, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while lodging the FIR, sought to be quashed. Though, it came to be vehemently argued at the behest of the petitioners that issue with regard to submission of forged and fake documents already stands settled vide previous judgments, as detailed hereinabove, but in none of the judgments, as taken note hereinabove, issue with regard to submission of forged and fake documents ever came to be decided, rather same came to the noticed by the department in the year 2022, while preparing the reply to one of the proceedings initiated at the behest of the petitioners for quashing of the complaint. 29. Though, it came to be argued at the behest of the petitioners that degree of B. Pharmacy granted by Gulbarga University in favour of petitioner No.1 was never submitted at the time 24 2026:HHC:21884 of making application for issuance of licence and petitioners do not know from where afore department was originated and who placed the same on record, but correctness of afore submissions cannot be gone in the instant proceedings, rather sufficient material has been adduced on record by the respondents to suggest prima face case against the petitioners. Respondents by way of placing material documents have been able to establish on record that degree of B. Pharmacy awarded in favour of the petitioner No.1 by Gulbarga University, was forged and fake. 30. Before lodging the FIR, Assistant Drugs Controller-cum- Licensing Authority, Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh sent communication dated 23.08.2022 (Annexure R-1) to the Vice- Chancellor, Gulbarga University, Kalaburgi, Karnataka. In afore communication, Officer, as detailed hereinabove, stated that during the preparation of the reply to be filed before the Hon’ble High Court, it came to be observed that Smt. Meenakshi has submitted the certificates alongwith degree of pharmacy issued by Gulbarga University. However, on scrutiny of degree and certificates, it appears that there is overwriting in the name of Meenakshi in the certificate No.29474, issued on 15.10.1996 and it also bears the name of Ravinder Singh. Though, as per reply filed by the respondents, no reply was received from Gulbarga University, however similar communication was also sent to the Registrar, Karnataka State 25 2026:HHC:21884 Pharmacy Council, which vide communication dated 25.08.2022 (Annexure R-2), apprised Assistant Drugs Controller-cum-Licensing Authority Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, that copies of marks card and degree certificate issued in favour of Smt. Meenakshi has been found to be not genuine. In afore communication specific reference with regard to communication sent by Principal R.R.K. S’s College of Pharmacy came to be made, wherein afore college clarified that documents of Smt. Meenakshi are/were incorrect and fake and it belongs to another student Sh. Ravinder Singh, a student of RRK’S College of Pharmacy, Bidar. Copy of communication issued by College of Pharmacy is also available on record at page 269 of the paper book. 31. Though, it came to be vehemently argued at the behest of the petitioners that at no point of time petitioners had submitted aforesaid documents for issuance of licence and licence at first instance was issued on the basis of diploma in pharmacy issued by the Directorate of Technical Education, Haryana, however this Court is not impressed with aforesaid submission made at the behest of the petitioners. Though, by making aforesaid submission, an attempt came to be made at the behest of the petitioners to set up a case that certificates issued by Kalaburgi University are manufactured by the respondent to wreak vengeance because petitioners levelled serious allegation against the Drugs controller and pursuant to their 26 2026:HHC:21884 complaints matter was investigated by the CBI, however, no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be adduced on record qua afore allegations, which otherwise appears to be totally vague and baseless. 32. True it is that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged against the petitioners after their having made complaints against the Drugs Controller, Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh to the Hon’ble Prime Minister, but such fact, if any, may not be sufficient to conclude that FIR, sought to be quashed, containing therein allegations of submission of forged and fake documents is the counter blast to the complaints lodged at the behest of the petitioners. Otherwise also, whether aforesaid documents forged or not, is a question of trial to be decided by the trial Court in totality of evidence led on record by the respective parties. At this stage, this Court finds no material, worth credence, suggestive of the fact that degree of B. Pharmacy allegedly issued by Kalaburgi University has been purposely manufactured by the respondents to wreak vengeance or harass the petitioners. 33. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that in none of its earlier judgments passed in various cases issue with regard to submission of forged/fake degree of B. Pharmacy ever came to be decided. Though, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 01.08.2022 27 2026:HHC:21884 passed by this Court in Cr.MMO No.433 of 2019, attempted to argue that once it was specifically stated before this Court that record is not available with regard to submission of application for renewal of licence, this Court can well presume that degree of B. Pharmacy allegedly submitted by the petitioners for grant of licence is manufactured by the department to harass the petitioner for his highlighting the corruption in the Department. However, having carefully perused aforesaid judgment, this Court may not agree with learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners for the reason that plea of non-availability of record raised in the afore proceedings by the respondents was with regard to application, if any made by the petitioners for renewal of licence, but it never came to be submitted by the respondents that they are not in receipt of original application made by the in the year, 2004 for grant of licence for manufacturing. 34. Leaving everything aside, all such questions, which are attempted to be raised through instant petition, can only be decided in totality of facts and evidence led on record by the respective parties. Having taken note of allegations contained in the FIR as well as contents of the reply filed by the respondents, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that prima-facie case under sections 420, 467,468, 471 and 120-B IPC, is made out against the petitioners and as such, power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to quash the FIR. Secondly, there is no sufficient material on record to 28 2026:HHC:21884 conclude that FIR sought to be quashed has been purposely filed by the respondents to wreak vengeance. 35. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. Interim order, if any, is vacated. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 04, 2026 (shankar)