M/S BAJAJ AGRO, SIRHIND AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — CRM-M/23925/2018
Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 13th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC011493202018
Next Hearing
30th May 2018
Filing Number
CRM-M/23925/2018
Filing Date
29-05-2018
Registration No
CRM-M/23925/2018
Registration Date
29-05-2018
Judge
MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Coram
MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Bench Type
Single
Category
38.3 - PROCEEDING STAYED IN QUASHING ( 197 )
Sub-Category
( 944 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL BRANCH
Decision Date
13th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/S BAJAJ AGRO, SIRHIND AND ANOTHER
Adv. GITISH BHARDWAJ
Respondent(s)
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Hearing History
Judge: MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-05-2018 | |
| 06-02-2019 | |
| 13-12-2018 | |
| 10-10-2018 |
Orders
MR. JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI
MR. JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI
MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ
MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ
The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal complaint against Bajaj Agro (a licensed insecticide dealer) and its proprietor for alleged misbranding violations. The court found that as mere dealers who purchased sealed products from licensed manufacturers, the petitioners qualified for statutory protection under Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, which exempts sellers who prove they acquired the product from licensed sources, exercised reasonable diligence, and maintained proper storage. The six-year delay between sampling (2012) and complaint filing (2018) without explanation further supported quashing the proceedings as abuse of process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal complaint against Bajaj Agro (a licensed insecticide dealer) and its proprietor for alleged misbranding violations. The court found that as mere dealers who purchased sealed products from licensed manufacturers, the petitioners qualified for statutory protection under Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, which exempts sellers who prove they acquired the product from licensed sources, exercised reasonable diligence, and maintained proper storage. The six-year delay between sampling (2012) and complaint filing (2018) without explanation further supported quashing the proceedings as abuse of process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts