The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of B. N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings in FIR No. 1008 of 2024 on the file of Film Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Vishal ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondents. The Court made the following: ORDER 1 I t ,..) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELI NGANA AT HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEM.Ii'AKA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 62o9 OF 2O2i o4.12.2025 Between: Hyder Khan And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor & another . Peti ioner Res r rndents ORDER: Heard Sri N. Vishal, learned counsel lrr petitioner as well as learned Assistant Plrblic Prosecutor.

2. PeLitioner is Accused No.11 in Crime \lo. 10O8 of 2024 on the h1e of Film Nagar Poiice Station, Hyde r ebad. Based on the confession given by A,.--cused i to 3 stat l g that they procure MDMA from petitioner and others, policc lrraved him as Accused. The principal contention of petitionr is that his irnplication rests solely on the coniession of a co-el( ( used, which ,/ 2 is inadmissible. While the proposition laid down in Tofan Slngh u. Sta.te of Tamilnadu is that a confessional statement to an NDPS oificer is inerdmissible in evidence. it does not preclude investigation or trial- 'I'he adrcissibility of such evidence is to be adjudicated during the course o[ trial, not at the stage of interlocutorv revision. The contention that no seizure was made frcm petitioner's possession also cannot be a ground for quash u.hen prosccution case is based on a chain of supply and consumplion of narcotics, linking all the accused persons.

3. Reliance placed by petiLioner on Criminal petition No.16327 of 2024 is distinguishable on facts. In that case, accused $,as not named by any co-accused in a'corroborated slatement, nor was there any chain of transaction established. In the prescnt case, petitionei rs specihcally named by Accused Nos. 1to 3, who provrdeC detailed information regarding procurement and sale of MDMA. The connection of petitioner to the netr.l,ork forrns part of the investigation record, which is yet to be tested during trial. The veracity and admissibility of such matcrial can only be tested zrt trial and cannot be a ground to stay proceedings altogether.

4. It is to be noted, the NDpS Act, 19g5 is a special enacEment to combat narcotic oifences and prompt prosecution \ )'-a ,r'? ) is necessary to curb the menacc oi drug abuse. Gr:-rting stal' of proceedings in such serious offences, merely on rl e Sround of denial clf allegations or absence: li seizure from t ne accused, vr.ould amount to interferencc- n'ith due process : rd frustrate the statutory objective. On overail consideration, rhis Court is satished that petitioner has nol made out any cas( for grant of the relief sought. The issues raised by him inr': le disputed lacts and questions of evidentian appreciation rr. r ch can onlv be adjudicated by the trial Court during the trii I This Court therefore, finds no reason to inlerfcre.

5. In this connection, it is apt to note so.r c judgments of the Hon'blc Supreme Court. In Neeharika ht iastructure Priaate Limited a. S;to:te of Maharashtral, the Sr prerne Court ..lyi.rg on its previous decisions has laid doum he follou'ing factors to be considered while exercising the p rwers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. : ".... iv) The power of quashing sl.tould t>e exercisecl s raringlv with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases. (The rarest I rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 48i lr.P.C- is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated i I the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Courtlr -(2021) 19 sCC 401 4 v) While exarnining an FIR/cornplaint, quashing of rvhich is sought, the court cannot ernb.lrk upon al cnquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otheru ise ci the alieqalions made in the FlR/complaint; vi) Criminai proceedings ought not to be scutled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a raritl. than au orclinan, ruie; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the lw-o organs of rhe State operate in lwo specific spheres of activities, The inherent porver of the court is, however, recognisecl lo secitfe the ends oi_iustice or prevent the above process by Section 482 Cr. P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciar and the police are complementary, not overlapping; Sa!,e in exccptlonal cases \,Jhere non interference would result in miscarriage of juslice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage oi investigation oi offences. xi) Extraordinary and inherent poiryers of the Court do not confer an arbitrarv lurisdiction on the CoLrrr to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and detaiJs relatirrg to i.he offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go frito the medts of the allegations in the FIR. police must be permitted \ to complete the investigation. It w.ul<i l-.e premature to pronounce the ) conclusion based on ha4y facts that the complaint/FlR cc rs not desen/e to be investigated or that it amounrs to abuse of proces:r rl law'. During or after investigation, if thc investitaiint officer finds il rt there is no substance in the application made b,- tile compiainant. r r' r investigating ofhcer ma5' file an appropriate report/ summary bcfcr thc learned Magistrate u.hrch may be consider-ed by the leamcr i\'laglstraLe in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The porver under Section 482 Cr P.C. is very wide, irL r conferment of u,ide power requires the court to be cautious. [t casLs ir onerous and more diligent dun on the court; t xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks 1ir \ rcgard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restlarr t imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by thir Court in the cases o[ R.P. Kapur (supral and Bhajan tal {supra) has r' re jurisdiction to quash the FlR/complaint. xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the I I :ged accused, the court when it exercises the po\\er under Section 4ii Cr. P. C., only has to consider whether or not thc ailegations in the I I I disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required r consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable off , ce or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/ police t( nvestigate the allegations in the FIR." 6 Similarly, in Skoda Auto Volk:t rugen India Priaate Limited. a. The State of Uttar Prad.es,rr,, thc Hon'ble ' 1zo2r.1 s scc zss 6 Apex Court categorically helcl th-at the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Scctiort 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal l'a.-sr:s jn rarest of rare cases u'ith cxtrcme calltron- .7 In the light of t ir. al)L)\,e, the Criminal Petition is d ismissed 8 Consccluer r tl'7, llrr: nriscellaneous Applications, if any shali stand closed sor- rlnrnrvasAREDDY A SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, The XVll Additional Chief Judrcial Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad' The Station House Officer, Film Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad' Two CCs to the Public ProsecutoT, nign Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.(OUT) One CC to Sri N Vishal, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 1 2 3 4 5 Sa/PSL Yk HIGH COURT DAf ED:041'1212025 ORDER CRLP.No.6209 of 2025 ) o LJ .t- ,i HES TA iJ '( 2 I JA!{ 2O2E -i ..;.rJ...4- ,z .rl I DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETTTION .\ g'cr-4neo u- ;n{fis