In Kisan Soma Sathe v. State of Ma harashtrar, the Bombay High Court quashed criminal procee

PetitionunderSection52SofBNSSprayingthatinthecircumstances slatedintheMemorandumofGroundsofcriminalPetition,theHighcourtmay b" pfirt.O to quash the above C.C. No.8317 of 2025 on the file of the Vl Addl chief Judicial iMagistrate at Hyderabad, against the Petitioner herein, in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 -pi.r..a Petition under Section 482 oI Ct.P .C praying that in the circumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofcriminalPetition,theHighcourtmay to stay all further proceedings including lhe appearance of. the [. p.tiion.,. in C.C. N;.8317 ot 2O25, on the fiie of Vl Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate 'tryOeraoaO, pending disposal of the abone case in the interest of .iustice' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL ,Advocate for the Petitbner and Sri Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla the Addl. Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondents The Court made the following: ORDER f I I i : , t I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TTIE STATE OF']ELANGANA ATHYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREE- {IVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.16112 of '.025 Date: 18.12.2025 Between Jitender Agarwal AND State ol Telangana, through SHO Prohibition & Excise, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at l-lyderabad, Telangana State and another. ...Petitioner ...Respondents 'Ihis Criurinal Petition has been I iled by the ORDER petitioner/acc used No. 3 seeking to quash the proc :edings in C.C No. 8317 ot'2025 on the file ol the learned VI ^dditional Chief Judiciat Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, leamed :ounsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, lear ned Additional Public Prosecutor tbr the respondents. 2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint or in the final report, the ingredients of the offence under Section 3a(1) ol the Telangana State Excise Act, 1968 (for short, "the Act") are not attracted against the petitioner' ln the present case, the petitioner has been implicated as an accused solely on the basis of the confession statement of the co- accuscd. [n the absence of any material, the Investigating Officer has arrayed the petitioner as an accused, which is impermissible under law.

4. Per contra,the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that u,hether the petitioner has committed the oflence or not can be determined onlv after a full-fledged trial. Based on the grounds pleaded in the present petition, the petitioner is not entitled to cluashing of the proceedings.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties, it is evident that there are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioner either in the complaint or in the final repoft. The reQord further reveals that the petitioner was implicated I 1 I I t I 3 as accused No. 3 solely on the basis of the confe:;r ion statement of the co-accused, namely accused No. l. Such a corr: :ssion cannot be taken into consideration. Hence, the continuation o the proceedings against the petitioner amounts to a clear abuse of tr : process of law.

6. In Kisan Soma Sathe v. State of Ma harashtrar, the Bombay High Court quashed criminal procee( ings where the accused was not named in the FIR, not iden I fied in the test identification parade, not arrested initially, and n,r charge-sheeted, and where no specific role or oven act was attrit uted to him, his implication resting solely on vague confessional : .atements of co- accused recorded in police custody, which rv:re held to be inadmissible under Sections l5 and 26 ol the Ev < ence Act and of minimal evidentiary ','alue even under Section 30 T the absence of independent corroborationl similarly, in Ramesh --handra Gupta v. State of U.P.2. the t (on'ble Supreme Court held I rat mere naming of an accused without specitic allegations or paflr{ ipation does not disclose a prima facie case and that criminal proc: rdings cannot be used to mechanicall_r' r-ope in pcrsons without firr tual foundation, reiterating that the l{igh Court rnay exercise powe 's under Section | 2025 SCC Of LiB.e Born 6 r(2022) I8 S( ( rtrr, 4 482 Cr.P.C. even after filing of the charge-sheet where no offence is made out

7. In the present case, there are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioner either in the cornplaint or in the final report. The petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No.3 solely on the basis of the conf'ession statement of the co-accused (Accused No. 1), without attribution of any overt act, role, or participation, and without any independent or corroborative material on record, such a confession of a co-accused, by itself, cannot be relied upon to sustain criminal proceedings against another accused. The implication of the petitioner is thus mechanical and unsupported by prima lacie material, and the continuation of the proceedings would amount to a clear abuse of the process of law.

8. Thc present case squarely attracts the principles governing the exercise ol inherent por.vers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Clourr hcld that proceedings are liable to be quashed where the allegations, even il taken at face value, do not disclose the comtnission ofany offence or make out a case against the accused, ' 1992 Supp ( l) SCC 3i5 or where continuation ofsuch proceedings would r:;ult in abuse of process. Applying the said principles, permitting tf ( prosecution to t4 continue against the petitioner would not serve the rr ds ofjustice

9. For the foregoing reasons and the pec: iar facts and circumstances of the case as well as the principles le d down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited suprtt, his Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedir gs against the petitioner.

10. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in ( .C.No.83 l7 of 2025 on the file of the leamed VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if ar1, shall stand closed. SD/- U. SUDHA ASP': TANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// r SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vl Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyde , i'# ii;ti;House officer,, Prohibition and ExciseS a lii'"'#iJ sRl. PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL Advocat': toPucl 4.TwoCCstoPUBL|Cpnosecuron,HighCourtforth€stateofTelangana d, - rderabad District tat ( n, Golconda, Hvderabad. at HYderabad [OUTI

5. Two CD Copies PK/SA Jy*_ HIGH GOURT DATED:1811212025 ( o O \\ i iE s i.,,, .\\ v ,\: 3 O IAtl * - i5p67-.., i\---. ltl/t :: t, t'',ll .9' CRLP.No.16112 of 2025 i I I I I I ; I : I CRIMINAL PEITITION IS ALLOWED. -- _a .JK5 P/,loe