Kayamuddin v. State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Heard Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/State.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following 2 prayer: "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondent authorities for its kind perusal.

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the FIR bearing crime no. 133/2026, dated 22.03.2026 registered at Police Station Kotwali Raipur,, District Raipur (C.G.) offence punishable U/s 22(C), 29 of NDPS Act and further may kindly be please to quash the entire challan bearing No. 150/2026 dated 20.04.2026 for the offences punishable U/s 22(C), 29 of NDPS Act (Annexure P/1).

10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the impugned order dated 24.04.2026 whereby the learned Special Judge NDPS Act Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) has taken cognizance of the impugned charge sheet and registered the criminal proceeding as Special Case No.96/2026 (Under the NDPS Act) pending before the Learned Special Judge NDPS Act Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in the matter of "State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Kayamuddin & 2 others" (Annexure-P/2).

10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent authorities to further investigate the case by examining the CCTV Footage in the police station, crime branch and which has been provided by the petitioner to the authorities and also prays to direct the respondent no. 3 to take action against the concerned police personals of police station City Kotwali Raipur and of Crime Branch Raipur for implanting the Psychotropic Substance, the tablets in the shop of son of the petitioner in order to implicate him falsely in the crime and to grant compensation for the malicious act of the police authorities.

10.5 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that on the basis of a secret information received by the police to the effect that a shop namely Health 3 Care and General Stores situated near the liquor shop at Nehru Nagar was selling prohibited psychotropic tablets without prescription and at higher rates, the said information was entered in the Daily Diary and conveyed to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Raipur Commissionerate, who orally permitted verification and further action. Pursuant thereto, a raiding party was constituted and a pointer was sent to the shop with a currency note of Rs.100/- for purchase of the tablets, whereupon it was allegedly found that Alprazolam tablets were being sold without any prescription. During the search, 1100 tablets of Alprazolam weighing about 132 grams were recovered from the shop being run by the son of the petitioner, and the Drug Inspector, upon spot testing, opined the same to be psychotropic substance, the currency note of Rs.100/- and sale proceeds of Rs.2,220/- were also seized. Thereafter, on the basis of the memorandum statement of the petitioner, it was stated that the said tablets had been purchased from co-accused Dayal Kumar Udasi, from whose possession 600 Alprazolam tablets weighing 72 grams were allegedly recovered, and upon further disclosure, the name of Manish Ahuja surfaced, though no contraband was recovered from him. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Dehati Nalishi was recorded and FIR bearing Crime No.133/2026 was registered on

22.03.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, and after chemical examination of the seized articles confirming the presence of Alprazolam, charge-sheet No.150/2026 dated 20.04.2026 came to be filed before the learned Special Judge under the NDPS Act, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), where the matter is presently pending and was listed on 17.06.2026 for arguments on charge and consideration of the applications filed by the petitioner. 4

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by planting contraband and fabricating evidence with the aid of the police machinery. It is submitted that the medical shop in question, namely Health Care Medical and General Stores, belongs to and is run by the son of the petitioner, who holds valid drug licences up to 18.12.2027, and the petitioner himself is not the owner of the said establishment and the petitioner sat on the shop for a short period. She further submits that the petitioner was illegally taken away by the officials of the Crime Branch on 20.03.2026 from the said shop, one day prior to Eid- Ul-Fitr, and the DVR of CCTV installed at the shop was also taken by the police without following due process of law. It is contended that the CCTV footage of 20.03.2026 and 21.03.2026, along with the photographs extracted therefrom and the certificate under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, clearly establish that the petitioner had already been taken into custody on 20.03.2026 and was again brought to the shop by police officials on 21.03.2026, who were carrying a white polythene bag allegedly containing the contraband tablets, thereby showing that the alleged seizure was manipulated and the incriminating material was implanted in the shop.

5. She further submits that despite repeated complaints made by the wife of the petitioner before the Police Commissioner and other authorities, and despite filing applications under Sections 91 Cr.P.C./94 B.N.S.S., 230 B.N.S.S. and 94 B.N.S.S. seeking production of CCTV footage, DVR, call detail records and video recording of the seizure proceedings, no fair inquiry has been conducted into the illegal acts of the police officials. Learned counsel would also submit that the alleged contraband is Alprazolam, which is a Schedule H-1 prescription drug, and even assuming the prosecution 5 allegations to be correct, any infraction in relation thereto would at best attract the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and not the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is thus contended that the material placed on record by the petitioner, particularly the CCTV footage, mobile timeline, contemporaneous complaints and supporting documents, is of sterling and unimpeachable character and completely belies the prosecution story, and therefore continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State would submit that the present petition is wholly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed, as the petitioner has been charge-sheeted only after due investigation and upon collection of sufficient material disclosing commission of offences under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is submitted that acting upon credible information received by the police regarding illegal sale and storage of psychotropic tablets at Health Care Medical and General Stores, a raid was conducted in accordance with law, during which 1100 tablets of Alprazolam weighing about 132 grams were recovered and seized, along with the sale proceeds and the marked currency note used by the pointer for purchase of the tablets, thereby prima facie establishing the involvement of the petitioner. He would further submit that on the basis of the memorandum statement of the petitioner, further recovery of 600 tablets of Alprazolam was made from co-accused Dayal Kumar Udasi, which lends corroboration to the prosecution case and clearly discloses a chain of illegal procurement and sale of psychotropic substances. It is contended that the seized substance has been duly tested and the FSL/chemical examination report confirms the 6 presence of Alprazolam, which is a psychotropic substance covered under the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, and therefore the contention that the matter would fall only under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is misconceived. Learned counsel would also submit that the pleas raised by the petitioner with regard to false implication, CCTV footage, alleged illegal detention and procedural irregularities involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ/inherent jurisdiction at this stage, particularly when the trial is pending at the stage of consideration of charge. It is thus submitted that the allegations in the charge-sheet, supported by seizure, memorandum, recovery and chemical examination report, prima facie make out the offences alleged against the petitioner and, therefore, no case for quashment of the criminal proceedings is made out.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the FIR in question has been registered on the basis of secret information regarding illegal sale and storage of psychotropic tablets from the shop in question. Pursuant thereto, search and seizure proceedings were conducted and 1100 tablets of Alprazolam weighing about 132 grams, along with the marked currency note and sale proceeds, are stated to have been recovered from the premises. It further appears that on the basis of the memorandum statement of the petitioner, additional recovery of 600 tablets of Alprazolam was made from co-accused Dayal Kumar Udasi. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet has already been filed before the competent Court.

9. It is also borne out from the record that the seized substance has been 7 subjected to chemical examination and the report confirms the presence of Alprazolam. Thus, the material collected during investigation, including the seizure proceedings, memorandum statement, subsequent recovery and chemical examination report, prima facie discloses commission of offences under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. At this stage, this Court is not required to meticulously appreciate the evidence or adjudicate upon the correctness of the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet as if conducting a mini trial.

10. In the matter of Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.) is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the FIR in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.), only has to consider whether or not the allegations of FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. Further, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now 528 of B.N.S.S.) , final conclusions are as under:- “i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevantprovisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; 8 ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

11. x) Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an 9 appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/ disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 10 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.”

12. Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), while reiterating the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings, has once again emphasized that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised with great caution, circumspection and only in exceptional circumstances.

13. The Apex Court has held that while considering a prayer for quashing of an FIR, charge-sheet or criminal proceedings, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial or undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence collected during investigation. The scope of judicial scrutiny at such stage is confined to examining whether the allegations made in the FIR, the material collected during investigation and the charge-sheet, if accepted at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and make out a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused. 11

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the BNSS), cannot enter into disputed questions of fact, evaluate the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations, assess the evidentiary value of witness statements, or adjudicate upon the probable defence available to the accused. Such an exercise falls squarely within the province of the trial Court, which alone is competent to appreciate evidence after the parties have led their respective cases. The Apex Court cautioned that where the allegations disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences and the investigating agency has collected material in support thereof, criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold merely because the accused has raised a plausible defence or disputes the correctness of the prosecution case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: “20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- (i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted prosecution/complainant; and/or the material that justifiably refuted it cannot be by is by the such, the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would 12 result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]”

15. In the present case, the record reveals that the prosecution has collected material in support of the allegations, including the seizure of 1100 tablets of Alprazolam from the shop, recovery of the marked currency note and sale proceeds, the memorandum statement of the petitioner, consequential recovery of additional Alprazolam tablets from the co-accused, and the chemical examination report confirming the seized substance to be Alprazolam, which is a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act. The charge-sheet has already been filed and cognizance has also been taken by the competent Special Court. At this stage, the allegations made by the petitioner regarding illegal detention, false implication, planting of contraband, manipulation of seizure proceedings, and reliance upon CCTV footage and other documents constitute disputed questions of fact, which necessarily require appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. Such issues cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the same would amount to conducting a mini trial, which is impermissible in law.

16. In view of the discussion made hereinabove and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), 13 Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the FIR, the material collected during investigation and the charge-sheet, if taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The defence sought to be projected by the petitioner cannot be examined at this stage, as the same falls within the domain of the learned trial Court. It is also significant that, despite availability of the statutory remedy, no application seeking discharge on the aforesaid grounds has been filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Court. Moreover, the petitioner's application seeking supply of the DVR and CCTV footage has already been rejected by the learned trial Court and the said order has admittedly not been challenged before any competent forum. In these circumstances, no exceptional case warranting interference in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out.

17. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not prejudice the merits of the case pending before the learned trial Court, which shall proceed independently and in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok