[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Ravutla Prashanth Goud vs The State Of Telangana on 10 April, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4405 of 2026
DATE: 10.04.2026
Between :
Ravutla Prashanth Goud
....Petitioner/Accused No.3
AND
The State of Telangana and another
....Respondents
:ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused
No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.649 of 2025 of
Armoor Police Station, Nizamabad District, registered for the offences
under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to, as 'the
NDPS Act').
2. Brief facts of the case:
On 10.12.2025, on credible information received at the police
station regarding mixing of Alprazolam in toddy at Mahalaxmi Colony,
Armoor, the Sub Inspector of Police, Armoor Police Station, complied
with Section 42 NDPS Act by reducing the information into writing,
informing the superior officer, and making a GD entry. After obtaining
necessary permissions and securing independent panch witnesses
through the Municipal Commissioner, he along with other excise
officials, proceeded to the spot. Upon interrogation, accused Nos.1 and
2 admitted the presence of Alprazolam in the house. A search and
seizure operation was conducted in accordance with law, leading to
recovery of 499.500 grams of suspected Alprazolam, properly sealed,
labelled M-1 and M-2, and documented through a seizure
panchanama. Mobile phones and other material objects were also
seized, and the entire process was videographed. During investigation,
accused Nos.1 and 2 disclosed that they, along with the petitioner,
conspired to procure Alprazolam and mix it with toddy to earn profits,
thereby endangering public health. The contraband was allegedly
sourced by the petitioner and distributed for use in toddy preparation
at their depot. The seized material was deposited in the malkhana,
and accused Nos.1 and 2 and the petitioner were medically examined
and found fit for remand. Based on the material collected, a case in
Crime No.649 of 2025 was registered under Sections 8(c) read with
22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, and investigation proceeded with
examination of witnesses, scene of offence panchanama, and collection
of further evidence establishing illegal possession, conspiracy, and
commercial-scale narcotics activity.
3. Heard Mrs. L. Pranathi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:
4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated
in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the
complaint, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c)
and 29 of the NDPS Act are not attracted against the petitioner. The
police have not seized any contraband from the possession of the
petitioner and he was not present at the scene of offence. However,
the petitioner has been implicated as an accused solely based on the
confessional statement given by accused No.1 and the same is not
permissible under law as per the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 67 of the NDPS. She further
submitted that no prima facie material exists connecting the petitioner
with the alleged offence. Hence, continuation of the proceedings
against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.
4.2. In support of her contention, she relied upon the following
orders:
1. C. Adithya Narayana Reddy v. The State of
Telangana 1 and;
2. Ismail Khan and another v. State of M.P. 2.
2025 (2) ALD (Crl.) 64
2019 SCC OnLine MP 944
5. Submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor:
5.1 Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner, which
attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c) and
29 of the NDPS Act. During the course of investigation, it is revealed
that accused No.1 and the petitioner are brothers and partners,
running a toddy business, where they mixed Alprazolam in toddy to
increase sales and earn higher profits. He further submitted that
accused No.1 in his statement specifically stated that the petitioner
brought 2.5 kgs. of Alprazolam from unknown persons @ Rs.10 lakhs
per kg. and handed it over to him and the same was kept in their
house and it was mixed with toddy and used, leaving a remaining
quantity of about 500 grams. The police seized the contraband from
the possession of accused No.1 after following due procedure as
contemplated under the provisions of the NDPS Act and the substance
of two packets weighed 499.500 grams and its worth about Rs.5 lakhs.
5.2. He further submitted that there was telephonic conversation
between the petitioner and the other accused. The petitioner had
approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.571 of 2026 for grant of pre-
arrest bail and the same was dismissed on 09.02.2026 by giving cogent
reasons, whereby it is specifically observed that the investigation
material disclose a prima facie link of the accused with the alleged
offences, such as, his involvement is being reflected from the
statements of co-accused, electronic communications or financial
transactions, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of pre-arrest
protection and the same seriously hamper the process of investigation.
He also submitted that the investigation is still in progress and at this
stage, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings,
especially the petitioner involved in heinous offence and F.I.R. is not an
encyclopedia.
Analysis:
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and perused the material available on record. It is
not in dispute that the petitioner had approached this Court and filed
Criminal Petition No.571 of 2026 seeking pre-arrest bail and the same
was dismissed vide order dated 09.02.2026 taking into consideration
the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dinesh Chander
v. State of Haryana 3, wherein it was observed that where the
investigation material discloses a prima facie link of the accused with
the alleged offence, such as, his involvement being reflected from
statements of co-accused, electronic communication, or financial
transactions, the grant of pre-arrest protection would seriously hamper
the process of investigation.
7. The record further reveals that the police seized 499.500 grams
of Alprazolam from the possession of accused No.1 and the petitioner
and accused No.1 are brothers.
8. The record further reveals that accused No.1 in his statement
specifically stated that the petitioner purchased 2.5 kgs. of Alprazolam
at the rate of Rs.10 lakhs per kg. from unknown persons and handed it
over to him. The said contraband was allegedly kept in their house
and used in the preparation of toddy. Out of the said 2.5 kgs. of
Alprazolam, the police seized 499.500 grams from the possession of
accused No.1.
9. Whether the petitioner, along with accused No.1, was engaged in
toddy business; whether the petitioner had purchased 2.5 kgs. of
Alprazolam from unknown persons and handed it over to accused
No.1; whether the said contraband was used in the preparation of
toddy; and whether any other material is with the prosecution to
connect the petitioner with the offence, are disputed questions of facts
and the same cannot be adjudicated in a proceedings under Section
528 of the BNSS/482 of the Cr.P.C. at threshold. The complaint prima
facie discloses the ingredients of the alleged offence and the matter
required to be examined during the course of investigation, especially
when the investigation is under progress.
10. The order in Aditya Narayan Reddy supra relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, as in that case the Court was
dealing with quashing of the final report in SC.NDPS.No.308 of 2024,
wherein the prosecution had failed to produce any other material and
except the confessional statement of a co-accused to connect the
petitioner with the alleged offence. In the present case, the
investigation is still under progress.
11. The other order relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Ismail Khan supra is also not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, as there are specific allegations
levelled against the petitioner that he, along with accused No.1, was
engaged in toddy business and that the petitioner purchased 2.5 kgs.
of Alprazolam and handed it over to accused No.1, and they mixed it
toddy to earn profits. Whether the petitioner is having any connectin
with accused No.1 for the offences levelled in the complaint, the same
will be revealed during the course of investigation.
12. It is relevant to mention that in State of Haryana and others v.
Bhajan Lal and others 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court delineated the
limited scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
proceedings, holding that such power may be exercised only in
exceptional cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do
not disclose any offence, are inherently improbable, legally barred, or
manifestly mala fide, while cautioning that the categories so
enumerated are illustrative and the power must be exercised sparingly.
The said principles were reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure
Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others 5, wherein it was
emphasized that the police have a statutory right and duty to
investigate cognizable offences and that Courts should not interdict
investigation at the threshold unless no cognizable offence is disclosed
on a plain reading of the FIR; the FIR is not expected to be an
encyclopedia of all facts, and criminal proceedings ought not to be
scuttled at their nascent stage. It was further held that the power to
quash proceedings should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection,
and only in the rarest of rare cases, where the allegations do not
disclose any offence or are manifestly attended with mala fide or are an
abuse of the process of law.
13. For the foregoing reasons and the precedent decisions, this
Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings against the
petitioner.
(2021) 19 SCC 401
14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, it is
made clear that any of the observations made in this order are
confined for the purpose of deciding this case only.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 10.04.2026
mar
