M/S VADSP PHARMACEUTICALS AND ORS(Not Applicable) vs UNION OF INDIA(Not Applicable) Advocate - ASGI — CRMMO/657/2022

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010223122022

Filing Number

CRMMO/5001/2022

Filing Date

12-Jul-2022

Registration No

CRMMO/657/2022

Registration Date

19-Jul-2022

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S VADSP PHARMACEUTICALS AND ORS(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Karan Sharma

  2. 2.Vijay Kumar(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Karan Sharma

  3. 3.Anand uppal(Not Applicable)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA(Not Applicable) Advocate - ASGI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

    Case Summary: CRMMO 657/2022 Court Decision: The High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed criminal proceedings against M/s VADSP Pharmaceuticals and two partners (petitioners) under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court found the complaint deficient because it failed to establish that the individual partners were "in charge of and responsible" for the company's business operations, which is legally required for vicarious liability. Additionally, the authorized technical representative who supervised manufacturing was not made an accused, undermining the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  4. 27-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  5. 03-Dec-2025

    Orders

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

  6. 12-Nov-2025

    Orders

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

  7. 15-Oct-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF

  8. 15-Oct-2025

    Orders

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

  9. 08-Oct-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF

  10. 08-Oct-2025

    Orders

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

  11. 10-Sep-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF

  12. 10-Sep-2025

    Speaking To The Minutes

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

  13. 01-Sep-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF

  14. 16-Jun-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF

  15. 16-Jun-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

  16. 04-Jun-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF

  17. 26-Mar-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF

  18. 27-Dec-2024

    Additional Registrar(j)View PDF

  19. 20-Nov-2024

    Additional Registrar(j)View PDF

  20. 28-Oct-2024

    Additional Registrar(j)View PDF

  21. 18-Sep-2024

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  22. 03-Aug-2023

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil KukrejaView PDF

  23. 26-Jun-2023

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  24. 19-Jun-2023

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil KukrejaView PDF

  25. 10-May-2023

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  26. 10-Jan-2023

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  27. 14-Nov-2022

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  28. 24-Aug-2022

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  29. 20-Jul-2022

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  30. 20-Jul-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  31. 12-Jul-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRMMO/657/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRMMO 657/2022 Court Decision: The High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed criminal proceedings against M/s VADSP Pharmaceuticals and two partners (petitioners) under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court found the complaint deficient because it failed to establish that the individual partners were "in charge of and responsible" for the company's business operations, which is legally required for vicarious liability. Additionally, the authorized technical representative who supervised manufacturing was not made an accused, undermining the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case