Madras High Court
Srikanth @ Chintu vs State: Inspector Of Police on 18 February, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.4419 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.4419 of 2025 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.2787 & 2788 of 2025
Srikanth @ Chintu
... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State: Inspector of Police,
V 5, Thirumangalam Police Station,
Chennai.
(Cr.No.182 of 2022)
2. Mr.Thangamadhavan,
Sub Inspector of Police,
V5, Thirumangalam Police Station,
Chennai.
.. Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records pertaiing
to the charge sheet in C.C.No.889 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned
II Addl. Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under N.D.P.S.Act
Cases at Chennai and quash the same.
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4419 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr. M.P.Saravanan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr. A.Gopinath,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No
.889 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial
of cases under N.D.P.S.Act Cases at Chennai thereby taken cognizance for
the offences under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 29(1) and 25 and 20(b)(ii)(B) of
NDPS Act in Crime No 182 of 2022 , as against this petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.05.2022, on
confidential information, the respondent police team monitored two
persons who came near car parking area in V.R.Mall and subsequently,
when they searched A1 and A2, they found A2 in illegal possession of six
numbers of 1.4 mg of DOB stamps and A3 in illegal possession of six
numbers of 1.4 mg of DOB stamps. Based on the confessions statements of
A2 and A3, the respondent police recovered 577 grams of Hash from the
petitioner . Subsequently an FIR was registered in Cr.No.182 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
arraying the petitioner as A1.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged
by the prosecution. Totally there are three accused in the case, in which, the
petitioner is arrayed as A1. He has been implicated only on the strength of
the confession statement of A2. Though there was a recovery from the
petitioner, it is only an intermediate quantity and subsequently no specific
overt act is alleged as against the petitioner. Hence he prayed to quash the
proceedings as against the petitioner in C.C.No.889 of 2023 on the file of II
Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under N.D.P.S.Act
Cases at Chennai
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit
that the petitioner is the main accused in this case and based on the
confession given by A2 and A3, the petitioner was implicated in the case
and 77 grams of Hash has been recovered from the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials placed on record.
6. On perusal of records, it is seen that the petitioner has been
implicated as accused on the strength of the confession statement given by
A2, followed by which, there was a recovery of 77 grams of Hash from the
petitioner. Though the petitioner pleads that the recovery of the contraband
is of intermediate quantity, there were serious allegations as against the
petitioner for the offence under sections 8(c), 22(c), 29(1) and 25 and
20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and the petitioner herein was arrayed as prime
accused/A1. Perusal of records would further reveal that there are specific
allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence of NDPS Act.
7. It is seen that pursuant to seizure of contraband, the police
registered a case in Crime No 182 of 2022 for the offences under Sections
8(c), 22(c), 29(1) and 25 and 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. After completion
of investigation, the respondent police filed a final report and the same has
been taken cognizance in C.C.No.889 of 2023 by the trial Court and it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
pending. To quash the said criminal proceeding, the petitioner filed the
present petition.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported
in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of
Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with
the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High
Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and
record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and
therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as against the accused. It
could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits
or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the
final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the
inconsistency statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
8. Fruther, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment
reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the
disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation
of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this Court has no
power to consider the disputed facts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated
02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs.
K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for
quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon
an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court
should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form
the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain offences complained of.
Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions requisite for
taking cognizance have been complied with or not and whether the
allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would
not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to prove
the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage
i.e., during trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage that the initiation
of criminal proceeding itself is malicious. Whether the criminal proceeding
is malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this state. The same is
required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the
ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot
be entertained to quash the entire proceedings.
11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.889 of 2023 on the
file of the on the file of the learned II Addl. Special Court for Exclusive
Trial of Cases under N.D.P.S.Act Cases at Chennai. The petitioner is at
liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. The trial Court is
directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of copy of this Order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
18 .02.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
To
1. The II Addl. Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases
under N.D.P.S.Act Cases at Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
V 5, Thirumangalam Police Station,
Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
msr
Crl.O.P.No.4419 of 2025 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.2787 & 2788 of 2025
18.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
