The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal complaints filed against retailers and other persons in the Maggi noodles supply chain over alleged excessive lead content detected during a nationwide sampling exercise in 2015.
Justice Madhu Jain allowed petitions filed by Dharmendra Hansraj Kotak and others under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, bringing an end to the criminal proceedings arising from the Delhi food safety complaints. The Court also set aside the orders taking cognizance, issuing summons and rejecting the petitioners’ discharge applications.
The Key Finding Behind the Delhi High Court’s Decision
The case turned on the evidentiary foundation of the original food safety reports.
Food Safety Officers had collected samples of Maggi noodles from retail outlets in Delhi in May 2015. The Food Analyst subsequently declared the samples unsafe, citing lead content in the masala tastemaker above the prescribed limit of 2.5 parts per million. One of the complaints also alleged misbranding in connection with the product’s “No Added MSG” label.
Fresh testing ordered through the Central Food Technological Research Institute, Mysore, a notified Referral Food Laboratory, subsequently found the lead content within permissible limits. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission later accepted those findings as conclusive.
That later testing became central to the High Court’s assessment of whether the criminal proceedings could continue.
Why the Original Test Reports Became Critical
The petitioners argued that the prosecution had effectively lost its foundation after the Bombay High Court’s 2015 decision setting aside the nationwide ban on Maggi noodles.
That judgment had questioned the laboratories relied upon for the original testing, finding that they were neither accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories nor notified under Section 43 of the Food Safety and Standards Act.
Subsequent testing was therefore conducted through CFTRI, Mysore, which was recognised as a notified Referral Food Laboratory. The fresh results found the lead content within permissible limits.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission subsequently accepted those findings as conclusive, further weakening the evidentiary basis of the criminal complaints arising from the original sampling exercise.
State Argued Delhi Prosecutions Could Continue Independently
The State opposed the petitions and argued that the Delhi laboratory involved in the original testing had been permitted to function under a transitional arrangement while formal notification was pending.
It also contended that the later judicial decisions concerned a different factual setting and should not automatically bring independent criminal prosecutions in Delhi to an end.
The High Court did not accept that argument.
Justice Madhu Jain noted that the Delhi complaints originated from the same nationwide sampling exercise and that the prosecution had not produced independent evidence apart from the original Food Analyst reports.
With those reports having subsequently come under judicial scrutiny and fresh testing having been carried out through a statutory Referral Food Laboratory, the Court found that the evidentiary basis of the earlier reports had substantially weakened.
Delhi HC Invokes Section 482 CrPC to End Proceedings
The Court also considered the scope of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
While such powers are required to be exercised sparingly, the Court held that they can be used where the foundation of a prosecution has ceased to exist.
In the present case, the High Court found that allowing the criminal complaints to proceed would require the petitioners to undergo a prolonged criminal trial despite the scientific basis underlying the prosecution having substantially eroded.
The Court therefore concluded that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
Earlier High Court Decisions Also Considered
The Delhi High Court also took note of decisions of the Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand High Courts involving prosecutions arising from the same 2015 Maggi sampling exercise.
Those courts had similarly quashed proceedings after the CFTRI findings were placed on record.
The Delhi High Court’s decision followed the same reasoning in assessing whether prosecutions could continue when the original scientific evidence had subsequently been undermined by fresh testing and judicial scrutiny.
Criminal Complaints and Summoning Orders Quashed
The Court ultimately allowed the petitions filed by Dharmendra Hansraj Kotak and others.
It quashed the criminal complaints, the summoning orders dated November 6, 2015 and January 11, 2016, and all consequential proceedings arising from them.
The matter was heard in Dharmendra Hansraj Kotak & Ors. v. State of Delhi & Anr., registered as CRL.M.C. 7013/2022 and CRL.M.C. 328/2023.
Rajesh Batra, Sonia Kukreja, Rohit Chandra and Sadhika Kochhar appeared for the petitioners, while Digam Singh Dagar, Additional Public Prosecutor, appeared for the State.
What the Ruling Means for the 2015 Maggi Prosecutions
The Delhi High Court’s ruling does not revisit the entire history of the 2015 Maggi controversy. Instead, its decision addresses whether these particular criminal complaints could continue when the scientific evidence on which they were founded had subsequently been undermined.
The Court’s reasoning focused on the connection between the original sampling exercise, the validity and evidentiary value of the initial laboratory reports, and the later testing conducted through a recognised Referral Food Laboratory.
With no independent evidence supporting the prosecutions beyond the original reports, the Court found that continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
DISCLAIMER:
Disclaimer: The content published by CourtDesk is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should seek professional legal counsel before acting on any information contained in this article.
