Police Have No Jurisdiction to Register FIR for Unsafe Food—Only Food Safety Authorities Can Act Under FSSA: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings

“The FIR registered by police under IPC for food adulteration is void ab initio and amounts to an abuse of process, as it bypasses the statutory mechanism under the Food Safety and Standards Act” — In a significant judgment strengthening the primacy of special legislation over general criminal law, the Rajasthan High Court held that police authorities lack jurisdiction to register an FIR for offences relating to food adulteration, which fall exclusively within the domain of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA). Allowing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of Tahir v. State of Rajasthan, Justice Anand Sharma quashed FIR No. 679/2019 registered by Police Station Tijara, which had alleged offences under Sections 420, 270, 272, 273 and 308 IPC.

“Section 89 of the Food Safety Act Has Overriding Effect — IPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Food Safety Law Occupies the Field”

The High Court emphasized that the FSSA is a self-contained code that comprehensively governs offences related to the manufacture and sale of unsafe, misbranded, adulterated, or sub-standard food. As per Section 89 of the Act, “the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force”.

In this context, the Court ruled:“Section 89 explicitly overrides general provisions like Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. Once the alleged act falls within the ambit of the FSSA, prosecution under the IPC is impermissible.”

Justice Sharma held that allowing police to prosecute food-related offences under IPC would defeat the purpose and structure of the FSSA, which prescribes a specific enforcement mechanism involving Food Safety Officers, Designated Officers, and the Commissioner of Food Safety under Sections 41 and 42 of the Act.

“Registration of FIR by Police in Food Adulteration Cases Is Without Jurisdiction — Contravenes Statutory Mandate of Section 42 FSSA”

The Court categorically held that:“The impugned FIR has been registered under Section 154 Cr.P.C., which could not have been lodged in light of the provisions of Section 4(2) Cr.P.C. read with Sections 42 and 89 of the FSSA. Police authorities have committed a serious error of law and jurisdiction.”

The judgment highlights how Section 42 lays down a detailed procedure for launching prosecution, requiring inspection, sampling, analysis, recommendation by the Designated Officer, and finally sanction by the Commissioner of Food Safety. None of these steps were followed in the present case.

The Court warned against circumventing the statutory process:“Once the legislature has established an exclusive framework for initiating action in food safety matters, allowing police interference would amount to statutory trespass and legal nullity.”

“FIR Under IPC Sections 420, 270, 272, 273, 308 Not Sustainable — Essential Ingredients Missing, Statutory Overlap with FSSA”

In addition to jurisdictional error, the High Court found that the allegations in the FIR lacked the essential ingredients required under the invoked IPC sections.

Justice Sharma observed:“There is no allegation of dishonest inducement or wrongful gain or loss to invoke Section 420 IPC. The offence of cheating is not even prima facie made out.”

Similarly, Sections 270, 272, and 273, which relate to spreading infection and adulteration of food, were deemed subsumed under Section 59 of the FSSA, which provides graded punishment depending on the nature of injury caused by unsafe food.

As for Section 308 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide), the Court found it to be a consequential charge lacking any independent basis or factual foundation.

“Police Cannot Use IPC to Bypass FSSA’s Procedural Discipline — FIR Quashed as Abuse of Process”

While the State argued that the police were justified in registering the FIR under general criminal law, especially after chargesheeting the accused, the Court firmly rejected this contention. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Mukesh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it held:

“Quashing is permissible even after filing of charge-sheet and framing of charge, where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.”

The Court ruled that allowing prosecution to continue in the face of such a clear jurisdictional bar would result in a “miscarriage of justice”.

“Ram Nath and Ram Singh Cases Applied — No Simultaneous Prosecution Under IPC When FSSA Covers the Offence”

The Court followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Ram Nath v. State of U.P., where it was conclusively held:“By virtue of Section 89 FSSA, Section 59 will override the provisions of Sections 272 and 273 IPC. There will not be any question of simultaneous prosecution under both the statutes.”

Further, the High Court cited its own recent precedent in Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan, where a similar FIR under IPC sections was quashed on identical grounds.

Justice Sharma reinforced the view that:“The FSSA provides more stringent and appropriate penalties for unsafe food, and its structured procedural safeguards cannot be bypassed by resorting to general penal provisions.”

FSSA Is the Only Law Applicable to Unsafe Food — FIR and All Criminal Proceedings Quashed

Concluding that FSSA is the governing statute for offences related to unsafe and adulterated food, the Rajasthan High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, declaring them illegal, without jurisdiction, and in violation of statutory mandate.

In the words of Justice Anand Sharma:“This Court deems it just and proper to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and FIR No. 679/2019… is hereby quashed along with all subsequent proceedings.”

Date of Decision: 11 November 2025