The High Court · 2025

2. Sri. P.V. Ram Prasada Rao, Additional lnspector of Police, S.R. Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad ..Respondents/Complainant 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 impugned proceedings in S.C.NDPS No. 273 OF 2022, on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in so far petitioners / Accused Nos. 32 and 33 are concerned. 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in S.C.NDPS No. 273 OF 2022, on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, including appearance and attendance of the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 32 and 33, 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 Baddam Narsimha Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER 'a IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SR.EENTVAS RAO Date: 02.12.2025 Between: Shivani @ Chintala Shivani and another AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad and another ..petitioners respondents Order This Criminal Petition is filed to seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.32 and 33 in S.C.NDPS.No.273 of 2022 pending on the file of learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr.Baddam Narsimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jitendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.l/State.

3. On 06.09.2022 upon receiving credible information that few persons were in possession of Psychotropic Substance Drug and upon following the procedure, they set up a trap near Vellanki Foods ! ..t).. Madhura Nagar, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. The police personnel have taken vantage positions near the area and found that some persons gathered and there was exchange of articles in between one another. On seeing the police, the persons tried to escape,. horvever, they were apprehended and were found in possession of MDMA Drug. During the course of investigation, it was found that pretitioners were consumers who purchased MDMA drug for the purpose of consumption, subsequently, respondent No.2, who is the Additional lnspector ol'Police, S.R.Nagar Police Station has filed the complaint and FIR rvas registered for the offences under Section 8(C) read with Sections 22(C) and 27 of NDPS Act, 1985 (for short .the Act'). After investigation, the investigating officer, filed cha.rge sheet vide S.C.NDPS.No.273 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for the offences under Section 8(C) read with Sections 22(C) and 27 of the Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that even according to the prosecution case, they were not involved in drug trafficking or peddling, however, they were identified as consumers on the basis of investigation. He further submitted that a co-ordinate bench of this Court has quashed the proceedings against accused Nos. \ l ::3:: 29 and 34 by orders dated 25.04.2023 in Cr1.P.No.2902 of 2023 and

27.t1.2025 in Crl.P.No.l2693 of 2025. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief that was granted in favour of accused Nos.29 and 34. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that except for the confessional statement given by the accused No.31 that the petitioners/accused Nos.32 and 33 are customers, no other material has been collected during investigation and no medical tests were conducted upon the petitioners/accused Nos.32 and 33 to make out they are consuming the contraband.

6. Section 64 ofthe Act empowers the Central Government or the State Government to grant immunity to any person who is directly or indirectly privy to violation of any of the penal provisions of NDPS ! Act with a view to obtain his evidence for prosecuting the accused in a case. Section 64 of the Act is similar to Section 306 of Cr'P'C whereby a Court can tender pardon. However it is the state or central goverTlment that is competent to grant immunity under Section 64' a,-' 4

7. section 64-A of the Act was substituted by Act9 of 200r with effect from 02.10.2001 for the purpose of granting immunity to addicts. Section 64-A of the Act is extracted for the sake of convenlence "64A. [mmunity from prosecution t.o addicts volunteering for treatment.-Any addict, who is charged with an offence punishable under section 27 or with offences involving small quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, who voluntarily seeks to undergo rnedical treatment for de-addiction fiom a hospital or an institution maintained or recognized by the Government or a local authority and undergoes such treatment shall not be liable to prosecution under section 27 or under any other section for offences involving small cluantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances: Provided that the said immunity from prosecution nray be withdrawn if the addict does not undergo the complete treatment for de-addiction."

8. Section 64-A of the Act was introduced but there is no mention about the authority, by whom such immunity can be granted from prosecution to the addicts volunteering for treatment. 'the Legislature had deemed it fit to introduce the provision under Section 64-Aof the Act to grant immunity to persons who are addicted to drugs and not in any way involved either with peddling or sale of drugs. In the absence L _"a9 of any specification regarding the authority or the procedure to grant t t I I immunity from prosecution to the addicts volunteering treatment, this Court under the inherent powers can quash the proceedings by granting immunity from prosecution considering the facts and circumstances in a given case. In similar circumstances, the High Court of Madras in the case of ,Sa njiv Bhatnagar v. State, represented by its Intelligence Ofjicerr and also in the case of Anish Kumar Dundoo v. State of Telangona2 invoked the provision under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for grant of immunity from prosecution. Further, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tofun Singh v. The State of Tamilnadu3 wherein it was held that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in evidence. That being the position, in the absence of any material evidence, continuance of proceedings against the petitioners would be unjustified and abuse of process of Law. It is also clear by the record that except the statements of co-accused, there is no other material agaiust the petitioners. g. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed aq4 the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.32 and 33 in SC I 2Ot6 SCC Online Mad 33796 2 zozt scc online TS 2195 3 zoztl+'1scc 1 ::6:: NDPS No.273 of 2022, on the file of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, are hereby r-1uashed.

10. With the above direction, the criminal petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. SD1- P PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I ! //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, SR Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Baddam Narsimha Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies ABK P HIGH COURT DATED: 0211212025 \ ORDER CRLP.No.15800 of 2025 -u'i Q 0 5 [i[ 2ii?5 -!P () () ( * ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q -l (