Telangana High Court
Maheshwarm Saneeth Alias M. Saneeth ... vs The State Of Telangana on 8 January, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.14284 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'),
by the petitioner/accused No.5 to quash the proceedings against
him in C.C.No.2090 of 2023 on the file of XIV Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at
Hayathnagar, pertaining to Crime No.1287 of 2022 of P.S.
Hayathnagar, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 188 of IPC, 8(c), 20(b) (ii) (A), 25, 27 and 29 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short
'Act, 1985'), Section 21/76 of City Police Act and Section 34(a)
of T.S. Excise Act.
2. Heard Mr. K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record.
JS, J
3. Basing on the complaint, dated 03.12.2022, that accused
have celebrated the birthday party of accused No.6 in the late
night hours with D.J. sounds, by consuming liquor and creating
nuisance, without obtaining permission from the concerned
authorities, a case in Crime No.1287 of 2022 was registered
against the petitioner and others. After completion of
investigation, charge sheet was filed, cognizance was taken and
the case was numbered as C.C.No.2090 of 2023 for the aforesaid
offences.
4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.
He further submits that Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. bars taking
cognizance of the offence under Section 188 of IPC, except on
the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of
some other public servant to whom he is administratively
subordinate. He further submits that though the petitioner has
not attended the said party, merely being the friend of other
accused and basing on the confession of co-accused, he was
JS, J
falsely implicated in the case. There are no specific allegations
against the petitioner, except stating that he has fled away from
the scene by jumping from the compound wall. In support of his
contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu 1,
wherein, it was held that the confessional statements recorded
under Section 67 of the Act, 1985, will remain inadmissible in
the trial of an offence under the Act, 1985. Hence, he prayed to
quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
opposed the petition stating that specific allegations are levelled
against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise of the allegations
levelled against the petitioner can only be known after conducting
full-fledged trial before the trial Court, and hence, prayed to
dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard both sides and perused the material on record,
it is apparent that there are no specific allegations against the
(2021) 4 SCC 1
JS, J
petitioner to show that he has imported or exported or transported
or manufactured or collected or he was found in possession of
any intoxicate or he refused or opposed or disobeyed any
direction of Police, except stating that he fled away from the
scene by jumping from the compound wall. As seen from the
averments of the charge sheet, during the course of investigation,
the Police have not conducted any medical test on the petitioner
to show that he is in habitual consumption of any narcotic
substance. Under Section 195(a)(1) of Cr.P.C., the Court is in fact
prohibited from taking cognizance of offence punishable under
Section 188 of IPC, unless it is filed by the concerned public
servant. Furthermore, the petitioner was arrayed as accused in the
case basing on the confession statement of co-accused, which is
inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the Act, 1985, as per
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh's
case (supra). In the said circumstances, the continuation of
proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of
law and the same are liable to be quashed.
JS, J
7. This Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.5 in C.C.No.2090
of 2023 on the file of XIV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 08.01.2025
rev
