Delhi High Court quashes criminal cases linked to 2015 Maggi controversy

The Delhi High Court has quashed two criminal complaints linked to the 2015 Maggi Noodles controversy, along with the trial court's summoning orders and all related proceedings, saying that continuing the cases would amount to an abuse of the legal process.

Justice Madhu Jain allowed petitions filed by Dharmendra Hansraj Kotak and others, setting aside the criminal complaints, the summoning orders issued on November 6, 2015 and January 11, 2016, and all subsequent proceedings before the trial court.

The court said the cases had lost their basis because of later judicial findings, including the Bombay High Court's decision to set aside the nationwide ban on Maggi, the Supreme Court's direction for fresh testing by the Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI), and proceedings before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

The judge observed that forcing the petitioners to face a lengthy criminal trial would serve no purpose as the foundation of the prosecution had been significantly weakened.

The cases were based on samples collected by Delhi's Food Safety Department during the nationwide inspection drive in May 2015. A Food Analyst had reported that the lead content in Maggi's tastemaker exceeded the permitted limit of 2.5 parts per million (ppm). One complaint also alleged misbranding over the product's "No Added MSG" label.

Based on these findings, criminal complaints were filed under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

The petitioners argued that the prosecution relied entirely on Food Analyst reports that later lost their legal value after the Bombay High Court ruled that the laboratories involved in the original testing did not meet the requirements laid down under the Food Safety and Standards Act.

They also pointed out that fresh tests carried out by accredited laboratories and later by CFTRI, following the Supreme Court's directions, found the lead content to be within the permissible limit.

The Delhi government opposed the petitions, saying the complaints had been filed after following the prescribed legal procedure. It argued that the petitioners had not sought referral analysis at the relevant time and that later court decisions on the nationwide Maggi ban did not automatically cancel individual criminal cases arising from samples collected in Delhi.

After examining the records, the High Court noted that the prosecution depended entirely on the original Food Analyst reports declaring the samples unsafe because of excess lead content.

The court observed that the Bombay High Court had later ruled that laboratories carrying out food analysis under the Food Safety and Standards Act must be both NABL-accredited and officially notified under Section 43 of the Act before their reports could be relied upon.

It further noted that the Supreme Court had ordered fresh testing by CFTRI, Mysuru, a recognised referral food laboratory, and later directed that its findings should be used in the consumer case before the NCDRC. The consumer complaint filed by the Union government was eventually dismissed after the CFTRI reports were considered.

The High Court said the criminal complaints before it arose from the same nationwide sampling exercise and were based solely on the original reports, whose evidentiary value had been substantially weakened after fresh scientific testing supervised by the Supreme Court.

Rejecting the State's argument that the criminal cases should continue independently, the court said it could not ignore later scientific findings and judicial developments when the core scientific basis of the prosecution had been reconsidered through a court-supervised process.

The High Court also referred to similar decisions by the Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand High Courts, which had quashed criminal proceedings linked to the Maggi controversy after relying on the CFTRI reports and the Supreme Court's directions.

Agreeing with those rulings, the Delhi High Court concluded that allowing the prosecutions to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law.