Telangana High Court
Udumula Balaswamy Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 20 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2044 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings against
them in C.C.No.1137 of 2024 pending on the file of X Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District,
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.04.2023, on
receiving the credible information, the Police conducted raid at Flat
No.2701, 27th floor, Sumudhra Acropolis Apartment, Nanakramguda
village and seized the contraband as the accused persons are found
with the illegal possession of the seized contraband. Hence, a case was
registered vide Crime No.507 of 2023 before the Gachibowli Police,
Cyberabad Commissionerate, and after completion of investigation, a
charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.1137 of 2024 on the file of the X
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District,
for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act.
3. Heard Sri A.M.Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners as well
as Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State. Perused the material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners firstly submitted that the
petitioners are innocent and they are no way concerned with the
alleged offences. He secondly submitted that the petitioners are only
tenants and the said contraband is seized from the premises of the
said flat, not from the possession of the petitioners. He thirdly
submitted that though there is no corroborative evidence, the
petitioner was implicated in the case with false and fabricated
allegations. He fourthly submitted that except the allegation that the
petitioners are residence of the said flat at the time of alleged
incidence, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and
in this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in
State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal 1. He lastly submitted that abuse of
process of law and prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by
quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for
the petitioners stating that the petitioners besides consuming
contraband, also selling the same illegally to the general public in
order to earn money in ease manner. He further submitted that there
are serious allegations against the petitioners, which requires trial.
Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
(1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)
6. In view of the rival submissions made by both the parties,
this Court has perused the material evidence available on record. It is
apparent that though the learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that the petitioners are tenants and no maid servant is
examined to prove the alleged offence, the same are not grounds to
quash the proceedings against the petitioners as the petitioners
despite consuming the seized contraband, they are also selling the
same illegally to the general public. Pertinently, the allegations leveled
against the petitioner are serious in nature and it requires trial to
elicit the true facts of the case.Hence, this Court does not find any
merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal
petition shall standclosed.
____________________________
JUSTICE SMT.K.SUJANA
Date: 20.02.2025
gms
