At the Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur, a brief but intense hearing on Wednesday saw Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand strike down a three-year-old FIR against a Dholpur shopkeeper, observing that the police had acted beyond their legal authority. The courtroom atmosphere felt unusually alert that morning-perhaps because similar matters have repeatedly come up after the Supreme Court’s 2024 rulings tightened the boundaries on how food safety offences should be prosecuted.
Background
The case concerned Ravi, a 29-year-old resident of Dungarpur locality in Dholpur, who was booked in 2022 after officers seized packaged food items from his shop. The samples, according to the FIR, were allegedly adulterated and “incorrectly branded.”
Instead of waiting for the Food Safety Department to initiate proceedings-as mandated under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006-the police registered an FIR under IPC sections for adulteration and cheating, and later also filed a charge sheet.
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Procedural Flaws, Sends Bihar Murder Case Back for Fresh Section 313
Ravi’s counsel argued that this was simply not permissible in law. He relied heavily on two major Supreme Court precedents-Ram Nath (2024) and Sushil Kumar Gupta (2024)-which held that the Food Safety Act overrides IPC provisions once food-related offences are involved.
Court’s Observations
Justice Dhand began by noting that the legal issue “is no more res integra,” meaning it has already been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court.
Reading portions from the apex court judgments, the judge pointed out that the Food Safety Act contains its own complete system-from sampling and testing to prosecution. Therefore, the police cannot independently investigate such offences.
Read also: Supreme Court Restores Seniority Rights of PSEB Employee After Nearly Five-Decade Legal Battle,
At one point, the bench remarked, “The Supreme Court has clearly held that Section 89 of the 2006 Act gives the law an overriding effect, leaving no room for simultaneous prosecution under IPC Sections 272 and 273.”
The judge also highlighted that the FIR did not mention any dishonest sale or fraudulent intent that could justify a cheating charge under Section 420 IPC. Without such intention, the offence of cheating simply doesn’t arise.
Decision
In its final order, the court quashed the FIR and all related criminal proceedings against Ravi, holding that the investigation was legally unsustainable. However, it added an important caveat: the Food Safety Officer is free to initiate appropriate action under the Food Safety Act if it has not already done so.
With that, the matter was disposed of, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned authority for compliance.
Case Title: Ravi S/o Subhash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1945/2024
Case Type: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Quashing of FIR)
Decision Date: 19 November 2025
