Revacure Lifesciences LLP & Ors. v. State & Ors., 2025
The Court balanced procedural irregularities (Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) for non-cognizable offences) with the legal standard under Section 460 CrPC, emphasizing that such errors do not vitiate the proceedings if done in good faith.
Judgement Details
Court
Delhi High Court
Date of Decision
26 September 2025
Judges
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
A FIR was registered against the Petitioners based on a complaint alleging manufacture of harmful injections.
-
The FIR was lodged on the direction of a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC.
-
The FIR invoked offences under both the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
-
The Petitioners challenged the FIR, arguing it was not maintainable as only the Drugs Inspector has the authority to initiate prosecution under the Drugs Act.
Issues
-
Can the Police register an FIR under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940?
-
Whether the Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) CrPC for investigation in such matters is valid?
-
Can IPC offences (Sections 274/275 IPC) related to the same transaction be investigated by the Police?
-
Whether the FIR in this case was legally sustainable?
Judgement
-
The High Court quashed the FIR under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, holding that only a Drugs Inspector can initiate prosecution under Section 32 of the Act.
-
Relied on Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma (2020), which clarified that Police have no authority to register FIRs for offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs Act.
-
However, the FIR also invoked IPC provisions (Sections 274/275), which can be investigated by the Police, provided proper procedure under Section 155 CrPC is followed.
-
As these are non-cognizable offences, only an NCR (Non-Cognizable Report) should have been filed, not an FIR.
-
The Magistrate’s direction was irregular but not illegal under Section 460 CrPC, and could be read as direction under Section 155 CrPC.
-
After evaluating the facts, the Court found no offence made out under IPC either, and quashed the FIR entirely.
Held
-
The FIR under Drugs & Cosmetics Act by the Police is not maintainable.
-
The offences under IPC though part of same transaction, are non-cognizable, so Police needed prior Magistrate’s approval (which was irregularly done, but curable).
-
No offence made out under IPC on merits therefore, FIR quashed in entirety.
Analysis
- This decision reaffirms the exclusive prosecutorial authority of the Drugs Inspector under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, thereby limiting Police overreach in technical regulatory matters.
- The Court balanced procedural irregularities (Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) for non-cognizable offences) with the legal standard under Section 460 CrPC, emphasizing that such errors do not vitiate the proceedings if done in good faith.
- Importantly, the ruling clarifies that non-cognizable IPC offences cannot be used as a backdoor to invoke full police investigation powers without following CrPC safeguards.
- This judgment sets a significant precedent in ensuring regulatory enforcement in specialized domains like drugs and cosmetics is not diluted or bypassed by general criminal procedure.