High Court of Telangana Hyderabad · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS pr ying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal P tition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the FIR in Crime No. 10'l of 20 4 on the file of Chanderghat Police Station, Hyderabad against the petitioner /Acc sed No 5 /Drug Pedler l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 2 23 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Cr minal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant Stay of all further p ceedings including arrest of the ime No. 1O1 ol 2024 on the file of Petitioner/Accused No. S/Drug peddler in C osal of the Criminal Petition No Chanderghat P.S. Hyderabad pending dis 1585412024 on the file of the Hon'ble High Co rt. This Petition coming on for hearrng, pon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon h aring the arguments of Sri SUNIL GAWASANE ,Advocate for the Petitioner a d Sri E. Ganesh learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the R spondent No. and of Sri_Advocate for the Respondents The Court made the following: ORDER *7 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15854 of 2o24 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking thc Court to quash the proceedings ergainst the petitioner/ accused No.5 in Crimc No.101 of 2024 of Chaderghat Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 22(cl, 29 of NDPS Act and Section 27-A <tf NDPS (Amendment) Act.

2. The bricf facts of the case are that on March 16, 2023, de facto complzrinant Sub Inspector of Police received credible information that Sayed Sarfaraz Abdul Khader, alias Pappu, was selling narcotics at Race Course Road, Malakpet, Hl,cierabad. Along with his team, he apprehended Pappu, who admitted to possessing

11.5 grams of MDMA, a narcotic substance. He rcvealed that he had been involved in the drug trade since 1998 and had connections u,ith various dealers and peddlers across India. Pappu also disclosed that he had purchased the MDMA from a Nigerian national in Goa and had solci some of it to customers there before coming to Hl derabad. He seized Toyota Innova vehicle, two cell phones, and other evidence, including financial transaction records and drug-dealing communications on social medi:r. The seized l l I I I 1 2 sxs,J Crl.P.No.15t54 of 2024 items were marked and sealed, and e accused was brought to the police station for further action

3. Heard Sri Sunil Gawsane, I arned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as S i E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on beh f of the respondents - State. 4 . karned counsel for the p titioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any o nce as alleged and is innocent and that the petitioner was falsely implicated as a drug peddler, and there is no mention of selling d gs in the FIR. The petitioner was previously acquitted in SC No lO of 2O2O on the fi1e of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, H derabad. Despite this, the petitioner was falsely implicated i the present case asa drug peddler. He further submitted t the present case is not maintainable in law or on facts, a the petitioner was previously acquitted and has been falsely imp cated. The petitioner came to know about the present case only hen applying for a passport, and it was revealed that the case s fi1ed against him. However, there is no whisper in the compla t or FIR about the petitioner possessing or selling the drug. H contended that the case was filed for statistical purposes, the petitioner was falsely implicated. The petitioner had no ssession of the MDMA drug, and there is no evidence to sugge t otherwise. In support of his a-€.,.f= ,/ 3 SNS'J CrI.P. o.15854 of2024 submission, he relied upou thc judgment of the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in Arif Khan v. State of Uttarakhand' r'r'herc it was a mandatory reiterated that Section 50 of the NDPS Act ts provision. Therefore, he prayed the Court proceedings against the petitioner by allowing to quash the Lhis criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant hr biic Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioncr stating tl-rat the petitioner was previously involved in NDPS case. Further, hc is a cirug peddler and the investigation is at initial stage, Therefore, at this stage, quashing of proceedings against the petitioner does not arise and prayed the Court to d ism iss the criminal Petition'

6. Upon carcful consideration of the submissions made by both Iearned counsel trncl a thorough review of the matertal available on record, the sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the peritioner has no connection with the alleged offences and was falsely implicated based solely on the confessional statement of accused No.l. It is argued that there has been no recovery of possession from the petitioner, and thc allegations in the FIR do not establish a pima facie offence against him' Furthcrmorc, the confession of the co-accused is inadmissible as t I SIGI,J C"l.P.Xo- 15aS4 of 2024 (,) evidence, as held by the Hon'ble S preme Court in Toofan Singh vs. State of Tanil Nadut. On th other hand, the prosecution asserts that 1 1 grams of MDMA wa recovered from the possession of accused No. 1, who confessed th t he, along with the petitioner and other accused persons, were i volved in drug peddling and used to supply drugs to those in need. This matter requires thorough investigation by the Invest ting Officer

7. In view of the facts and ci umstances of the case, and considering the seriousness of the llegations leveled against the petitioner, this Court does not fi d any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings ainst the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, this criminal tition is dismissed granting Iiberty to the petitioner to move a sh petition in case the cause survlves Miscellaneous applications, any pending, shall stand closed To, //TRUE CO Yil SD/- A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TYON SEC OFFICER '1 . The Vlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Ma 2. The Station House Officer, Chaderghat P 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Cou Hyderabad.[OUT]

4. One CC to Mis. Sunil Gawasane, Advoc 5. Two CD Copies 3 istrate at Hyderabad. lice Station. for the State of Telangana at te [OPUC] VR/gh !Llt( ^::1- {S*:i &r:'-.]: .!Htr.ii *dli 'it a 1_?.- t:*tEi , r"airf rri .Wh .,!e *"1-- .<3 ' i*1. ir, -,-ri -,.{}?,{ i -;e - ;:iit , HIGH COURT DATED:01 10412025 \ I ORDER CRLP.No.15854 of 2024 /,' ti:; J;\.) \, 'i riF. s Iltj / 9tr 7 12 rllE zffi s(' ; + i) r:,.- 1f - ^ 'cl''-' I I I I I DTSMISSING THE CRIM!NAL PETITION o6E),(^ \n F,