The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court For the State of Telangana, Through S. H. O Gachibowli P. S. Cyberabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash S. C. No. 124 of 2024 before the Honble Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cum I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad,at L. B. Nagar as abuse of process of law, to mept the ends of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. l.A. NO: 1OF 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 S. C. No. 124 of 2024 before the Honble Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cum I Additional Metropolitan Sessions J udge, Cyberabad,at L. B. Nagar pending disposal of the main crlminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the [/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri VLADIMEER KHATOON ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms. Shalini Saxena the Assitant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Sole Respondent. he Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEV EADA CRIMINAL P ETITION No.12107 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - zrrrcused No.5 seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.124 of 202't on the file of the learned ttletropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- Additional tt/etropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, L.B Nagar, -egistered for the offences under Sections 8(c) read with 2O(bXiiXB) and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1!t 5 (for short "NDPS Act").

2. Heard the submissions of lils. Vladimeer Kha'c on, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Shalini Saxr: ra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State ,

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitt'd that the petitioner is not a consumer and is facing false allega ilns and that he is a student and there is no seizure from the pelilioner herein and hence, continuation of proceedings would spoil t te career of the peJjtioner. Therefore, he prayed to quash the croceedings against the petitioner. Learned counsel, in sup port of his .G \ 2 submissions, relied upon the decision of this Court in Dhandu Surya Sumanth Reddy v. State of Telanganal.

4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner is accused No.S and is alleged to be a purchaser and a consumer and that accused Nos.1 to 3 were remanded to judicial custody and that they purchased 2 kgs. of Ganja and packed ganja into small packets of 20 grams each and sold the said packets to their friends and one of them is the present petitioner. Therefore, she submitted that there is ample material collected against the petitioner during the course of investigation and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record. The petitioner herein is facing allegations for the offences ,

6. punishable'under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) and 27 of the NDPS Act. The allegations point out that the petitioner herein is a consumer and that he used to purchase ganja from accused Nos.1 to 3. ' zozs 1r; nlt 1crt.) 373 (T.s.) 3 I

7. ln Dhandu Surya Sumanth Reddy's case (srr1:,ra), the only \ ( witnesses were the Police Officers and panchas arrr i there is no incriminating material seized from the petitioner there,r.r, except his mobile phone. Thus, relying upon the judgment of the /\pex Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamilnadu2, wherein it war; held that the confessional statements recorded under Section 67 rf NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence unl:r the NDpS Act, it was held that there is no medical record to slrow that the petitioner-accused therein has consumed any Narcc,t c Substance and that except the confessional statement of petitiore r. there is no material on record to show that he has purch:r:;ed Narcotic Substance or consumed it. ln the said circunr itances, the proceedings against the petitioner therein were quash€,1. 8 ln the present case also there is no seizur€ 'of Narcotic Substance from the petitioner-accused No.5 and eve 11 as per the charge sheet, the offence charged against the petitir iner-accused No.5 is under Section 27 of the NDPS Act and the re I tals point out that he is a consumer It is further borne out by reco r that he was not subjected to any medical examination and no s rch report is found in the record. '1u ot r1.r scc t "-- .G 4 I ln view of the above held discussion and in light of the above cited decision, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.124 of 2024 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-l Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, L.B Nagar, are hereby quashed Miscellaneous applicaticns pending, if any, shall stand closed To, SD/- K.BHAVA SIST AMY EGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER 'l . The Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cum I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,Cyberabad,at L. B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The S. H. O. Gachibowli Police Station. Cyberabad Commisionerate, Ranga Reddy District.

3. One CC to SRl. VLADIMEER KHATOON Advocate tOPdCl 4 One CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies PK/PSL s HIGH COURT DATED:1211112025 CRLP.No.12107 of 2025 t- o s ,i ''rnra.l2l :i' t o i /,/ I CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED .v