The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, (2021) 12 SCC 674 settled a long-contested question: police officers cannot register FIRs or independently investigate Chapter IV offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Cognizance of these offences can be taken by a court only upon a complaint by a Drug Inspector, an aggrieved person, a recognised consumer association, or an authorised Gazetted Officer — not on a police report. This article analyses the Ashok Kumar Sharma ruling, traces the legal basis for this exclusion in Section 32, examines the consequences for ongoing prosecutions initiated on police FIRs, contrasts the D&C Act regime with the NDPS Act (where police do have FIR powers), and provides practical guidance for challenge and quashing.

INTRODUCTION

Police officers in India routinely respond to reports of spurious or substandard drugs by registering FIRs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. On the surface, this appears logical: drug offences involve criminal liability, and the police are the general criminal law enforcement agency. The reality, however, is that the D&C Act creates a self-contained prosecutorial architecture that deliberately excludes the police from complaint-filing authority.

This exclusion has profound practical consequences. Every prosecution initiated on a police FIR under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act — rather than on a Drug Inspector’s complaint — is legally defective and liable to be quashed. Courts across India have done precisely this, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ashok Kumar Sharma.

Yet the error persists. Police continue to file FIRs; Drug Inspectors sometimes refer cases to the police rather than filing complaints themselves; and accused persons are arrested, investigated, and prosecuted through a procedure that the Supreme Court has invalidated. This article aims to eliminate this confusion.

SECTION 32: THE EXCLUSIVE COGNIZANCE PROVISION

Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is the exclusive gateway for judicial cognizance of Chapter IV offences. It provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under Chapter IV or Chapter IVA except:
(i) On a complaint made by a person authorised by the Central Government or State Government by general or special order; OR
(ii) On a complaint made by the person aggrieved; OR
(iii) On a complaint made by a recognised consumer association; OR
(iv) In case of cognizable offences, on a complaint made by a Drug Inspector.

A police report is conspicuously absent from this list. The Act’s drafters made a deliberate choice: prosecution of drug quality offences requires specialist investigation, technical understanding of pharmaceutical standards, and custody of legally collected samples — capabilities invested in the Drug Inspector, not in the general police force.

A court that takes cognizance of a Chapter IV offence on a police FIR rather than one of the Section 32-prescribed complaints is acting without jurisdiction. The defect is fundamental, not curable by amendment of the charge sheet or subsequent involvement of the Drug Inspector.

UNION OF INDIA v. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA: THE DEFINITIVE RULING

The facts of Ashok Kumar Sharma arose from the seizure of a stock of unlicensed drugs from M/s. Sharda Narayan Clinic and Pharmacy in Uttar Pradesh. A Drug Inspector filed an FIR with the local police station for violation of Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 27 of the Act. The accused filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court for quashing of the FIR and protection from arrest.

The High Court, referring to Sections 22, 23, 25, 27, and 32 of the Act, observed that the Act lays down a complete code for trial of offences. Section 32 authorises only the Drug Inspector (and specified others) for launching prosecution. The Inspector should not have lodged an FIR and authorised the police to investigate. The FIR was quashed.

The Supreme Court affirmed. In its ruling reported as Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, (2021) 12 SCC 674, the Court held that prosecution for cognizable offences under the Act initiated solely by a police officer based on the FIR they filed was not legally sustainable. The Act is a complete code; police investigation and FIR filing are not part of that code for Chapter IV offences.

CONSEQUENCES FOR ONGOING POLICE-INITIATED PROSECUTIONS

The practical consequence of Ashok Kumar Sharma is significant for any prosecution that was initiated on a police FIR rather than a Drug Inspector complaint:

First, the accused can file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings. The ground: the FIR was lodged contrary to the scheme of Section 32 of the Act.

Second, the accused can seek anticipatory bail, relying on Ashok Kumar Sharma to argue that the investigation itself is without legal authority — weakening the prosecution’s case for custodial interrogation.

Third, even if a charge sheet has been filed and the Magistrate has taken cognizance, the proceedings can be challenged by way of revision or writ, as cognizance taken on an invalid FIR/charge sheet is itself jurisdictionally infirm.

Fourth, any evidence collected by police during the investigation of a Chapter IV offence — which investigation they had no authority to conduct — is of questionable admissibility.

CONTRAST WITH THE NDPS ACT

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) provides an instructive contrast. Under the NDPS Act, police officers are specifically designated as ‘officers’ authorised to make arrests, conduct searches, and file FIRs. Section 42 of the NDPS Act empowers any Gazetted Officer or Sub-Inspector of police to enter, search, seize, and arrest without warrant.

The reason for this difference is conceptual: the NDPS Act targets trafficking and possession — criminal activities detected through intelligence, surveillance, and physical interdiction, tasks suited to the police. The D&C Act targets quality failures in manufactured products — detected through laboratory testing of collected samples, tasks requiring specialist technical authority.

Confusing these two regimes is a common source of error. Police who seize drugs at a medical store and register an FIR under the D&C Act are applying an NDPS-style response to a D&C Act situation — procedurally incorrect and legally vulnerable.

CONCLUSION

Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act creates a complaint-based prosecution architecture that excludes the police from FIR filing for Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 offences. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ashok Kumar Sharma makes this exclusion unambiguous and judicially enforceable. Every FIR filed by a police officer for a Chapter IV of Drugs and Cosmetics Act offence — however well-intentioned — is legally defective.

For defence counsel, this ruling provides a powerful tool: any existing prosecution based on a police FIR is vulnerable to quashing at every stage — before charge sheet, after charge sheet, and even after cognizance — as the foundational instrument of prosecution is void. Counsel should routinely check the origin of any D&C Act prosecution to identify this ground.

FAQs: 

1. Can police register an FIR for offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940?
No. As clarified by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, police officers cannot register FIRs or independently investigate Chapter IV offences under the Act.

2. Who is authorised to initiate prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act?
Under Section 32 of the Act, prosecution can only be initiated through a complaint filed by:

• A Drug Inspector
• An authorised government officer
• The aggrieved person
• A recognised consumer association

3. Can a court take cognizance based on a police charge sheet?
No. A court cannot take cognizance of Chapter IV offences on the basis of a police report or charge sheet. Cognizance is valid only when based on a complaint as prescribed under Section 32.

4. What happens if an FIR has already been registered by the police?
Such an FIR is legally defective and can be challenged. The accused may file a writ petition before the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

5. Is the defect of a police-initiated FIR curable later?
No. This is a jurisdictional defect. It cannot be cured by later filing of a complaint or by involving a Drug Inspector after the FIR has been registered.

6. Can police assist in drug-related investigations at all?
Police may assist in maintaining law and order or in executing search/seizure operations when required, but they cannot independently initiate prosecution under Chapter IV of the Act.

7. How is the Drugs and Cosmetics Act different from the NDPS Act in this context?
Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, police officers are expressly empowered to register FIRs, investigate offences, and make arrests. This is not the case under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

8. Can an accused seek anticipatory bail in such cases?
Yes. The accused can rely on the Ashok Kumar Sharma ruling to argue that the investigation itself is without authority, strengthening their case for anticipatory bail.

9. What is the remedy after cognizance has already been taken by a Magistrate?
Even after cognizance, the accused can challenge the proceedings through revision or a writ petition, as the initial FIR itself is void.

10. Why does the law exclude police from initiating such prosecutions?
Because offences under the Act involve technical evaluation of drug quality, which requires specialised expertise and statutory procedures assigned to Drug Inspectors.

REFERENCES

[1] Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, (2021) 12 SCC 674 — Supreme Court of India.  http://aidcoc.in/pdf/15-Supreme%20Court%20on%20Powers%20of%20Police%20and%20Drugs%20Inspectors%20to%20Arrest.pdf

[2] Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Drishti Judiciary.  https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/section-32-of-the-drugs-and-cosmetics-act-1940

[3] Proceedings under D&C Act can be initiated only on the basis of Drug Inspector’s complaint — Courtrooms.in (March 2024).  https://courtrooms.in/proceedings-under-drugs-and-cosmetics-act-1940-can-be-initiated-only-on-the-basis-of-drug-inspector-and-no

[4] Only Drug Inspectors can probe, file FIRs for certain cognizable offences under D&C Act — Express Pharma (August 2020).  https://www.expresspharma.in/only-drug-inspectors-can-probe-file-firs-for-certain-cognizable-offences-under-dc-act-1940-sc/

[5] The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — India Code.  https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15278/1/drug_cosmeticsa1940-23.pdf

[6] Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, ‘A Guide to Prosecutions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940’ (2025).  https://www.cyrilshroff.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/A-Guide-to-Prosecutions-under-the-Drugs-and-Cosmetics-Act-3.pdf

[7] Karnataka High Court: Sessions Court Has Exclusive Jurisdiction for Chapter IV Offences (January 2026) — LiveLaw.  https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/karnataka-high-court-ruling-session-court-exclusive-jurisdiction-offences

The post The Drug Inspector as the Sole Prosecution Authority: Why Police Cannot File FIRs Under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Background

The intricacies of interpersonal relationships often weave a complex tapestry of emotions and interactions. At the heart of such complexities lies the delicate balance between consent and evolving dynamics. Recently, the Supreme Court delivered a poignant reminder that the consensual nature of a relationship at its inception may not endure throughout its course. In a significant legal development, the court declined to quash an FIR against an accused in a rape case, shedding light on the nuanced nature of relationships and the legal intricacies surrounding them.

Understanding the Case: Allegations, Legal Quandaries, and the Role of Consent

At the core of the legal conundrum was a relationship that had soured over time. The accused, who was once in a consensual relationship with the complainant, found themselves entangled in a web of allegations and counter-allegations. The aggrieved party filed an FIR, invoking various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including charges of rape and criminal intimidation. Additionally, provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, were brought into play, adding layers of complexity to the legal landscape. The legal saga took a turn when the accused, dissatisfied with the proceedings, sought recourse in the Karnataka High Court to quash the FIR. Unsuccessful in this attempt, the case eventually found its way to the highest echelon of the judicial system—the Supreme Court. The appellant’s counsel argued that the complainant’s actions were a retaliatory response to a prior complaint of blackmailing and extortion lodged by the accused. However, the apex court, in its discerning wisdom, scrutinized the allegations, assessing their inherent probability—a crucial factor in determining the validity of an FIR.

Counterblast Claims: Defense, Judicial Scrutiny, and the Question of Consent

The defense’s contention that the complainant’s actions were merely a counterblast to prior accusations warranted careful examination. The Supreme Court, in its observation, acknowledged the potential for retaliatory claims but underscored the importance of assessing the inherent probability of the allegations. Legal precedent, exemplified in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., deems FIRs with inherently improbable allegations as grounds for quashing. In this light, the court determined that the accusations in the FIR, though vehemently contested by the defense, did not meet the threshold of inherent improbability. The court’s scrutiny did not stop at the counterblast claims. It delved into the core question of consent in relationships and the legal implications surrounding it. While recognizing the well-established principle that consensual relationships should not be misconstrued as rape offenses, the court maintained a nuanced perspective. It noted that the respondent’s allegations, crucial to establishing the lack of continued consent, did not align with the ongoing consensual nature required for such cases.

Legal Precedent and Justification: Quashing the FIR Denied

To substantiate its stance, the Supreme Court referred to the case of Shambhu Kharwar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2022 INSC 827, which unequivocally establishes that consensual relationships do not inherently give rise to offenses of rape. However, the court astutely differentiated between consensual beginnings and the evolving dynamics of a relationship. It emphasized that the respondent’s allegations failed to demonstrate the sustained consent necessary to justify the continuation of a consensual relationship. The decision to deny the quashing of the FIR was rooted in the court’s assessment of the evolving nature of the relationship. The bench, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, opined that when one partner expresses a clear unwillingness to continue with a relationship, the character of that relationship at its inception may no longer prevail. This nuanced perspective on the shifting dynamics of relationships added depth to the court’s reasoning, highlighting the importance of ongoing consent and communication in intimate connections.

Protecting Identity and Future Proceedings: Court’s Directives

Beyond the adjudication on the quashing of the FIR, the Supreme Court displayed a proactive stance in safeguarding the interests of the parties involved. Recognizing the sensitivity and potential repercussions of such cases, the court directed appropriate measures to mask the identity of the respondent in all future proceedings across concerned courts. This directive reflected the court’s commitment to protecting the privacy and dignity of individuals involved in legal disputes, particularly those of a sensitive nature.

Implications and Societal Reflections: Understanding Consent in Legal Discourse

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reverberates beyond the confines of the legal realm, delving into societal reflections on relationships, consent, and legal complexities. The acknowledgment that relationships are dynamic, subject to changes and shifts in dynamics, underscores the need for a nuanced legal approach. In a society grappling with evolving norms and expectations, the court’s recognition of the importance of ongoing consent serves as a guiding principle for legal discourse. Furthermore, the case prompts a critical examination of the legal landscape surrounding relationships, especially in the context of consent. While the court upheld the principle that consensual relationships should not be unjustly categorized as rape, it also highlighted the need for vigilance in cases where the evolving dynamics suggest a departure from the initial consensual state. This nuanced approach contributes to the ongoing discourse on consent, privacy, and the intersection of personal relationships with legal scrutiny.

Conclusion: Balancing Legal Rigor and Human Dynamics

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s refusal to quash the FIR in a case involving a once-consensual relationship reflects a careful balancing act between legal rigor and the dynamic nature of human connections. The court’s meticulous scrutiny of counterblast claims, consideration of legal precedent, and emphasis on ongoing consent contribute to a jurisprudential framework that acknowledges the complexities inherent in intimate relationships. As society navigates the intricate terrain of evolving norms and expectations, legal decisions of this nature provide valuable insights into the intersection of personal lives and the justice system. The case serves as a reminder that legal proceedings must be attuned to the nuances of human relationships, recognizing that the consensual nature of a connection may evolve over time. In doing so, the court reaffirms its commitment to upholding justice while navigating the delicate intricacies of human emotions and interactions.

The post Consent Dynamics: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Evolving Relationships and Legal Complexities appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.