Guwahati: The Delhi High Court has quashed two criminal complaints related to the 2015 Maggi noodles controversy, along with the trial court’s summoning orders and subsequent proceedings, holding that continuing the cases would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Justice Madhu Jain allowed petitions filed by Dharmendra Hansraj Kotak and others, setting aside the criminal complaints, summoning orders issued on November 6, 2015, and January 11, 2016, as well as all proceedings that followed before the trial court.
The court noted that the foundation of the prosecution had been significantly weakened by subsequent judicial developments, including the Bombay High Court’s decision to lift the nationwide ban on Maggi, Supreme Court directions for fresh testing by the Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI), Mysuru, and proceedings before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
The cases originated from samples collected by the Delhi Food Safety Department during a nationwide inspection drive in May 2015. A Food Analyst had reported that the lead content in Maggi tastemaker exceeded the permissible limit of 2.5 parts per million (ppm). One of the complaints also alleged that the product was misbranded because of its “No Added MSG” label.
Criminal complaints were subsequently filed under provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
The petitioners argued that the prosecution was based entirely on the original Food Analyst reports, whose evidentiary value was later questioned after the Bombay High Court held that laboratories conducting food analysis under the Act must be both accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) and notified under Section 43 of the legislation.
They further submitted that subsequent testing by accredited laboratories and CFTRI, carried out pursuant to Supreme Court directions, found the lead content to be within permissible limits.
The Delhi government opposed the petitions, arguing that the complaints had been filed after following the prescribed legal procedure. It also contended that the petitioners had not sought referral analysis at the relevant time and that judicial decisions concerning the nationwide Maggi ban did not automatically invalidate separate criminal proceedings arising from samples collected in Delhi.
After examining the case records, the High Court observed that the prosecution rested entirely on the original Food Analyst reports declaring the samples unsafe because of excessive lead content.
The court also took note of the Supreme Court’s direction for fresh testing at CFTRI, Mysuru, a recognised referral food laboratory. The findings were subsequently considered in proceedings before the NCDRC in a consumer case filed by the Union government, which was eventually dismissed.
The High Court said the Delhi cases stemmed from the same nationwide sampling exercise and relied solely on the original reports. Their evidentiary value, it noted, had been substantially undermined by subsequent scientific testing conducted under the supervision of the Supreme Court.
Rejecting the argument that the Delhi criminal cases should proceed independently, the court said later scientific findings and judicial developments could not be ignored when the central scientific basis of the prosecution had been reconsidered through a court-supervised process.
The court also referred to decisions of the Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand High Courts, which had similarly quashed criminal proceedings arising from the Maggi controversy after considering the CFTRI reports and Supreme Court directions.
Following those rulings, the Delhi High Court concluded that allowing the prosecutions to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law.