The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep by P.P High Court for the Sate of Telangana, Hyderabad Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Crime No. 61 of 2025 of Excise P.S., Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District against the Petitioner ..RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 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 Crime No. 61 of 2O25 of Excise P.S., Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri THAKUR RISHAB DEV SINGH, Advocate for the Petitioners and SRI JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER I THE I{ON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE:\/l EADA CRIMI NAL PETITION No.1 oF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.3 to 5 seeking to quash the proceedings in coR No.61 of zo25 on the file ,:f Prohibition and Excise station, Ameerpet, registered for the offence under section B(c) read with Section 22(b) of NDps Act, 1985.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Thakur Rishab Dev Singh, learned cc,unsel for the petitioners and sri .tithender Rao Veeramalla learned Additional Public prosecutor for the respondent - State.

3. The learned petitioners counsel has subnritted that the petitioners erre facing false allegations under sections; g(c) read with Section 221:,b) of NDPS Act. The learned counsel has further argued that they have the cc footage which disctoses that they were pickecl up from their residence and a false palrchanama has been conducted by the police. Therefore, he prayed to quash the same. 2

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that during the course of investigation corrtraband was seized from the petitioners herein and that the investigation is still in progress and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The record discloses that on credible information, the police went to Golden Cave Restaurant & Bar, Ameerpet Road, Punjagutta and apprehended A1 to A5 and aiso have seized 1.14 grams of MDMA from the possession of petitioners/accused 3 to 5. The petitioners counsel has filed a set of plrotographs stated to have been obtained from the CC footage. Hourever, the evidentiary value of the said photographs would be tested during the course of trial.

7. The learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Sfafe of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlat and othersl. ln the said case, the Apex Court had elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 CrPC/Article 226 of the Constitution in the context of quashing the criminal proceedings. ln para 102, -the Apex Court enumerated seven categories of cases where t 1992 Supp(l) Supreme Court Cases 335 i :4"f .'.?"4rrt, J power can be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 Cr.P.C by the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. Para 1O2 is as follows:- "102. ln the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter Xlr/ and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordirrary power under Article 226 or lhe inherent powers under Section 4g2 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way ol illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precis,e, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and irt give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power shoulC be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first inforrrrittion report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their fact: value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie corrstitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other rnaterials, if any, accompanying the FIR do lot disclose a cogrrizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers; under Section 156(1) of the Code excep: under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sectiorr 1S5(2) of the Corle. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support 01' the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and rnake out a case aqainst the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizerble offence but constitute only a non-,:ognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by apolice off;r;ei without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section '155(2) of the Code. 4 (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to . the' institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." B. lt was also held in the said case that power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. The court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or othenruise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint

9. ln the present case, the allegations made in the FIR do prima facie point out an offence under Section B(c) read with Section 22(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 against the petitioners. Hence, it is opined that it is not a fit case to quash proceedings

10. ln the, result, the Criminal Petition is disposed cf directing the police conr;erned to conclude the investigation at the earliest, strictly in accordance with law. Further, the petiticner shall co- operate with the police as and when required for the purpose of investigation lVliscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR a SECTION OFFICER /TTRUE COPY/' l,ThelllAdditionalChiefJudicialMagistrateatNampally.llyderabadDistrict 2. The Station House Officer, Excise P.S. Ameerpet, Ameerpet, Hyderabad District

3. One CC to SRI THAKUR RISHAB DEV SINGH Advocate [OPUC]

4.TwoCCstcrPublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabac [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies VM/gh HIGH COURT DATED: 21l0Blztt25 I I I i I I I I I ORDER CRLP.No.10304 ot 2025 DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q t"\ .4,' ,\+

1., ..1 .:. 14 lii',i ?t[i i], * 3 Pri ,+ *