1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.30346-M of 2008. Date of Decision: 19.11.2008. *** Jain & Company. .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Heard. Notice of motion to the State only. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG Haryana accepts notice. Through the instant petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of Criminal Complaint No.637-2 dated 25.9.2008, filed under Section 7 of Food Adulteration Act and also the order of even date passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind whereby the Court below has issued notice to them to appear before the Court on 20.11.2008 in the said complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset has contended that the petitioner is mainly aggrieved with the order dated 25.9.2008, as referred to above, since the same is not only a non-speaking one but also indicative of non-application of mind by the learned Magistrate. The order dated 25.9.2008 reads as under:- “Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered, Notice of the complaint be issued to opposite party for 20.11.2008 on filing of copy etc.” 2 From the tenor and manner of the impugned order, it is emphatically clear that none had been discussed or considered by the learned Magistrate while issuing process against the petitioner. Though the complaint was obviously filed by the complainant in the official capacity, but it was incumbent upon the Court to give adequate reasons for issuing process against the opposite party and not in a casual way, as and when any such complaints are filed. Even there is no reflection in the impugned order as to contravention of of which provisions of Food Adulteration Act, the process has been issued against the petitioner. Thus, the order is a non-speaking one and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.9.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below with a direction that it shall pass orders afresh in the complaint, after hearing the complainant, on merits and without being influenced from any observation made hereinabove. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 19,2008 Jiten