The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT NO.1

2. Sri Mahbub Basha, S/o. Not Known, Age Not Known, Occ: Sub-lnspector of Police, Gudimalkapur, PS, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT No.2/DEFACTO COMPLLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of B. N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Cnminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for records and quash the proceedings charge sheet rn SC NDPS No. 1 of 2025, on the file of ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, AT Nampally, in which the Petitioner is been arrayed as Accused No.

29. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings, including appearance of the Petitto n erlAccused No. 29 in sc NDps No. 1 of 2025, on tr : file of Il Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, AT Nampally, pe r jing disposal of the quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearrng, upon perusrng ite Memorandum of Grounds of crimrnal Petition and upon hearing the argume r :s of Sri E Venkata siddhartha Advocate for the petrtroner and sri Jrthender F ao Veeramalla, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Ncs 1 and 2 The Court made the following: ORDER TN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.15935 of 2025 Date:11.12.2025 Between: Mr. Navadeep Pallapolu. AND The S tate of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another. ... Petitione r ...Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C. NDPS No. 1 of 2025 on the file of the leamed II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, Nampally, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No 29 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(bXiiXA), 22(c),27,27A,and 29 of theNDPS Act, 1985.

2. Heard Mr. E.Venkata Siddhartha, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 2

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits thilt retitioner has not committed the alleged offences and has been false 1, implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegatiorr made in the cornplaint or the trnal report, and thc statements r: orded under Section 16l of the CrPC, the petitioner's name is r..( t mentioned. He further submitted that there are no specific alleg r ions levelled against the petitioner. The alleged contraband was s: zed fiom the possession ofother accused. Ilcnce. the ingredients f,t the offences under Sections 8(c) read with 2O(b)(iiXA), 22(c), 2:.-,.27A, and29 olthe NDPS Act, 1985, are not attracted against the I etitioner and the continuation of the proceedings against the petiti ,ner/Accused No. 29 is a clear abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed

4. Per Contra. learned Additional Public Prosec.r or submitted that whether tlie petitioner has comrlritted the olfenct: or not has to be adjudicated by the trial Court after a full-fledgeJ trial and the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing ofthe proct:r dings.

5. Having considered the rival submissions rrade by the respective parties and upon perusal of the materilr] available on record, it reveals that neither in the complaint nor in t Le final report any allegations have been made against the petitioner, except that his name is shown at Serial No.29 in the hnal report as an accused' Even according to the prosecution, no contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner to attract the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b(ii)( A), 22(c), 21 , 27A, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Hence, continuation ol proceedings against the petitioner is clear abuse of process of law'

6. It is pertinent to mention that the law goveming the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C- or the extraordinary \ writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is well settled by the decision in Srak of Haryana v. Bhaian Lalt, wherein.the Hon'ble Apex Courl illustratively catalogued categories of cases warranting quashment, such as when the allegations taken at face value do not constitute an offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, are actuated by mala fides, or where continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, while cautioning that such power must be sparingly invoked to secure the ends ofjustice.

7. For the foregoing reasons and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhaian Lal's case (supra), this Court is of ' 1992 supp (l) sCC 335 € 4 the considered view that it is a fit case to invoke tlr provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.Cl. to quash the proceedirl s against the petrtloner 8 In the result, the criminal petition is rllorved. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.29 in I .C. NDPS No 1 of 2025 on the file of the learned ll Additionr Mctropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, at Nanrpally, are hereby , uashed. Pending miscellaneor-rs applications, if ar.l1 , shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// ST}, B.G. VYJAYANTHI ASSI iTANT REGISTRA& --. r SECTION OFFICER Additional t\iletrop.otitan Sessrons Judge, Hyder. cad, AT Nampafly 1 ]h" Ll 2. TheXVl Additional Chief Metropolitan t\ilagistraG, Namperl T.Hyderabad. 3. The Station House Officer, Gudim alkapui police Station.f yderabad. 4. Two CCs to the Public prosecutor, H jgh Court for the Sttr. : of Telangana at 5. One CC to Sri E Venkata Siddhartha. Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad.(OUT) Sa,?SI HIGH COURT DATED:1 111212025 ORDER CRLP.No.15935 of 2025 o,) C) i,w-g' ALLOW!NG THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1 t)-,