[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Aslam Parvez @ Aslam Pravej @ Ashlam ... vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opp. Party on 6 January, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2026:JHHC:113)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2748 of 2020
Aslam Parvez @ Aslam Pravej @ Ashlam Parwej, age about 26 years,
son of Md. Mubarak Ansari, resident of Village-Sakhiya, Post-Oriya,
P.S.-Muffasil, Dist.-Hazaribagh-825301, Jharkhand
.... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opp. Party
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Rohit Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, SC II
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the
prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the
petitioner including the order taking cognizance dated 22.08.2020
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Hazaribagh in
connection with Korrah P.S. Case No. 97 of 2020, corresponding to
Drugs and Cosmetics Case No. 02 of 2020, whereby and where
under the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Hazaribagh has
taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 414/34
of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs
& Cosmetics Act, 1940 consequent upon submission of charge
(2026:JHHC:113)
sheet in respect of the said offences by the police in connection
with Korrah P.S. Case No. 97 of 2020.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the F.I.R. of Korrah P.S. Case No.
97 of 2020 was lodged by the Probationer Police Sub-Inspector
contending therein that the petitioner and his associates were
riding a motorcycle and when the informant-police officer
instructed them to stop, they stopped and on verification it was
found that though the engine of the motorcycle was of Hero
Honda make but the petrol tank of the motorcycle was of passion
plus make. It appeared that efforts were made to clear the chassis
number and engine number. The petitioner was taken to the
police station along with the motorcycle and from the motorcycle
tool box, chlorpheniramine maleate and codeine phosphate syrup
100 ml of Ownrex company which is cough syrup of two bottles,
one chillam used to consume ganja and two tablets of Nitrosun
which is an intoxicant were seized and it was alleged that the
petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused
persons were assisting in concealment of stolen property as well
as stocking for sell of drugs without a valid licence.
4. Police took up investigation of the case and after completion of
investigation found the allegation to be true and submitted charge
sheet and basing upon the same, learned Additional Sessions
Judge-II, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance of the offences as
already indicated above.
(2026:JHHC:113)
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying
upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors., reported in
(2021) 12 SCC 674, para -170.3 of which reads as under:-
"170.3. Having regard to the scheme of CrPC and
also the mandate of Section 32 of the Act and on a
conspectus of powers which are available with the Drugs
Inspector under the Act and also his duties, a police
officer cannot register an FIR under Section 154CrPC,
in regard to cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the
Act and he cannot investigate such offences under the
provisions of CrPC."
that it is a settled principle of law that having regard to the
scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure and also the mandate of
Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and on a conspectus of
powers which are available with the Drugs Inspector under the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act and also his duties, a police officer
cannot register an F.I.R. under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. with regard
to cognizable offences under Chapter-IV of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940 and cannot investigate such offences under
the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
as in this case, police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the
offence punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs &
Cosmetics Act, 1940, so neither the F.I.R. nor the consequent
action of investigation, submission of charge sheet, cognizance
order, order of framing of charge, so far as it relates to the offences
punishable under Section 27 (b)(ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act,
(2026:JHHC:113)
1940 is sustainable in law. Hence it is submitted that the same be
quashed and set aside.
7. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand fairly
submits that the police has committed an error in registering the
F.I.R. in a case involving the penal provisions of the Drugs &
Cosmetics Act, 1940 but opposes the prayer to quash the entire
criminal proceeding as there is no illegality in proceeding with the
case in respect of the offence punishable under Section 414/34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here
that as has categorically been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma
& Ors. (supra), the law is well settled that a police officer cannot
register an F.I.R. under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the
cognizable offences under Chapter-IV of the Drugs & Cosmetics
Act, 1940 and cannot investigate such offences under the
provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure but in this case in-
disputedly, the Officer-in-Charge of Korrah Police Station has just
done that, hence this Court has no hesitation in holding that the
F.I.R. and the consequential action is liable to be quashed so far as
the offence punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) off the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940.
9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
taking cognizance dated 22.08.2020 passed by the learned
(2026:JHHC:113)
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Hazaribagh in connection with
Korrah P.S. Case No. 97 of 2020, corresponding to Drugs and
Cosmetics Case No. 02 of 2020 so far as it relates to Section 27
(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is quashed and set
aside against the petitioner and it is made clear that the
proceeding including evidence if any recorded, so far will
continue and will be maintainable so far as the same relates to any
penal provision of law including the penal provisions of the
Indian Penal Code.
10. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 6th January, 2026
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 07/01/2026
