[2026:RJ-JP:16242] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4290/2015 1. Rajiv Parasar S/o Shri R.K. Parasar, Production & Quality Control Officer, C/o M/s Singhal Pesticides, 9/122, Moti Bagh, Jamunapar, Agra-282006, R/o 66, Radha Vihar, Agra. 2. Piyush Singhal, Partner C/o M/s Singhal Pesticides, 9/122, Moti Bagh, Jamunapar, Agra-282006. 3. Sanjay Singhal, Partner C/o M/s Singhal Pesticides, 9/122, Moti Bagh, Jamunapar, Agra-282006. 4. Mukul Singhal, Partner C/o M/s Singhal Pesticides, 9/122, Moti Bagh, Jamunapar, Agra-282006. 5. Ravi Singhal, Partner C/o M/s Singhal Pesticides, 9/122, Moti Bagh, Jamunapar, Agra-282006. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through P.P. 2. The Insecticide Inspector & Agriculture Officer (Plant Conservation), Dy. Director Office Agriculture (Extension), Chaurasiyabas Road, Ajmer. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3907/2014 1. M/s Singhal Pesticides, 9/122, Moti Bagh, Jamna Park, Agra (U.P.) 2. Smt. Manjula Singhal, Partner, C/o M/s Singhal Pesticides, 9/122, Moti Bagh, Jamna Park, Agra (U.P.) 3. Smt. Shakuntala Singhal, Partner, C/o M/s Singhal Pesticides, 9/122, Moti Bagh, Jamna Park, Agra (U.P.) 4. Smt. Madhu Singhal, Partner, C/o M/s Singhal Pesticides, 9/122, Moti Bagh, Jamna Park, Agra (U.P.) 5. Smt. Beena Singhal, Partner, C/o M/s Singhal Pesticides, 9/122, Moti Bagh, Jamna Park, Agra (U.P.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through P.P. 2. The Insecticide Inspector & Agriculture Officer (Plant Conservation), Dy. Director Office Agriculture (Extension), Chaurasiyabas Road, Ajmer. [2026:RJ-JP:16242] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-4290/2015] ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tripurari Sharma for Mr. Jinesh Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/04/2026 1. Since a common prayer has been made by the petitioners in both the instant criminal misc. petitions for quashing the entire proceedings arising out of the Criminal Case No. 133/2000 pending against them before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kekri, Ajmer. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the accused petitioners submits that during the pendency of these petitions, two accused persons i.e. Piyush Singhal and Mukul Singhal have passed away and the petitioner-Rajiv Parasar has been acquitted by the aforesaid Court vide judgment dated 06.10.2018. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Insecticide Inspector visited M/S. Choudhary Traders, Ajmeri Gate, Kekri on 03.01.2000 for inspection and has taken sample of Fanvalrate and the same was found to be adulterated, hence, a complaint under Sections 3(k) (1) and 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short, 'the Act of 1968') was submitted against all the petitioners i.e. the seller and manufactures. Counsel submits that as per Section 24 of the Act of 1968, in case a sample is found to be mis-branded, then the accused has a right to request for sending the same to the Central FSL for its re-analysis. Counsel submits that the [2026:RJ-JP:16242] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-4290/2015] information about mis-branding was given to the accused petitioners after expiry of the sample, hence under these circumstances, the accused persons have lost their right to defend themselves for no fault of their own. Hence, the complaint filed against them is not tenable and the same is liable to the quashed. Counsel further submits that the petitioners-Smt. Manjula Singhal, Smt. Shakuntala Singhal, Smt. Madhu Singhal and Smt. Beena Singhal are the dormant partners of M/s Singhal Pesticides and they have no concern whatsoever with the business affairs of the aforesaid proprietorship firm, hence, they cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offence, if any, committed by the other partners of the aforesaid firm. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (i) M/s. Northern Minerals Ltd. and Ors., Vs. Rajasthan Government and Anr. reported in AIR 2016 SC 2543 (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd. and Ors., reported in (1999) 8 SCC 190 (iii) State of Punjab Vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., reported in (1996) 11 SCC 613. (iv) M/s,. Laxmi Agencies Vs. State of Rajasthan (passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur while deciding S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 160/2008 on 11.05.2012) 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer and submits that the complaint was filed against all the accused petitioners way back in the year 2000 and only the accused- Chandra Mohan and Rajeev Parashar have appeared and faced the [2026:RJ-JP:16242] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-4290/2015] trial and they have been acquitted from all the charges by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kekri, Ajmer vide its judgment dated 06.10.2018 and the rest of the accused are absconding since last more than 26 years. He submits that on one hand they are making a prayer before this Court for quashing the proceedings of the criminal complaint which is lying pending against them since last more than 26 years, and on the other hand they are abusing the process of law by absconding and not appearing before the Trial Court. He submits that unless and until, they appear before the Trial Court, they have no right to assail the proceedings pending against them. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the present petitions are liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the judgment dated 06.10.2018 indicates that only two of the accused persons namely i.e. Chandra Mohan and Rajeev Parashar appeared and faced trial before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magitrate No.1, Kekri, Ajmer where they have been acquitted. The operative part of the aforesaid judgment indicates that the rest of the accused persons are absconding since the date of filing of the complaint against them in the year 2000 and more than 26 years have been passed thereafter and the accused petitioners have not bothered to appear before the Trial Court and no interim order is operating in their favour. They cannot be allowed to misuse the process of law, hence on this count alone, both these petitions are liable to be and are hereby rejected. [2026:RJ-JP:16242] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-4290/2015] 6. Accordingly, both criminal misc. petitions stand dismissed. Stay application and all pending application(s),if any, also stand dismissed. 7. In case, the accused petitioners appear before the Trial Court, then they shall be at liberty to avail all remedies available to them under the law, for redressal of their grievance. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/42-43