Back
2025 Supreme(Cal) 650
In the High Court at Calcutta
APURBA SINHA RAY, J.
Kajim Sk. @ Khajim Sekh @ Khajim Seikh – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.R. No. 2885 of 2024
Decided On : 10-09-2025
For the Appellants : Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, Adv., Md. G.N. Imrohi, Adv., Ms. M. Sinha, Adv.,Ms. Upasana Banerjee, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. Anasuya Sinha, Ld. A.P.P., Mr. Samarjit Balial, Adv.
The court quashed the narcotics case against the petitioner due to lack of material evidence linking him to the offense and long delays in executing arrest warrants, which constituted an abuse of the court process.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of proceedings - The petitioner sought quashing of the NDPS Case based on his non-involvement in the offense and lack of material evidence against him - Court found no adherence by the police to execute arrest warrants over 14 years, rendering continued prosecution an abuse of process. (Paras 1-15)
(B) Evidence Law - Statements of co-accused - Jurisdiction under Section 482 mandates caution, and should not stifle legitimate prosecution; however, when reliance is solely on inadmissible co-accused statements, proceedings can be quashed. (Paras 8-10)
Facts of the case:
The case involved the petitioner being implicated in a narcotics case based solely on statements from arrested co-accused, with no evidence recovered against him and his long abscondence during investigation.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the proceedings for lack of material evidence supporting the charges against the petitioner and ruled it an abuse of court process.
Issues: Whether the petitioner can be implicated based solely on co-accused statements and the propriety of long delays in executing arrest warrants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court articulated that absent corroborative material against the accused, and given significant delays and non-executions of arrest warrants, the prosecution was unjustifiable.
Result: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for quashing ndps case (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments on lack of evidence against the petitioner (Para 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. legal precedents relevant to the case (Para 3 , 4 , 10) |
| 4. court's caution in quashing proceedings (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 14) |
| 5. importance of verified evidence in investigations (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. proceedings quashed due to lack of evidence (Para 15) |
| 7. conclusion and order of the court (Para 16 , 17) |
Judgment :
Apurba Sinha Ray, J.
1. By this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner Kajim Sk. has prayed for quashing of the NDPS Case No. 35 of 2024 corresponding to GR Case No. 1591 of 2010 arising out of Jalangi Police Station Case No. 308 of 2010 dated 15.05.2010 under Sections 379 /411/413/414 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 27 (a)(6)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, pending before the Learned Judge, Special Court under NDPS Act cum-ADJ, 5th Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad including the order dated 02.09.2010 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Murshidabad and all subsequent orders passed thereto.
2. Mr. Das Mahapatra has submitted that on the basis of a suo moto complaint of one Sujoy Roy Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (ASI), Jalangi Police Station the said case was initiated on the factual aspects that after receiving a source information Mr. Roy conducted a raid on 15.05.2010 and thereupon recovered narcotics from one Maruti Car bearing Registration No. WB 02F/8837. Two accused persons namely Babu Sk @ Abid Hossain and Ejaharun Mandal were arrested and further on the basis of the statements of the said accused, the present petitioner was also entangled in the case although the petitioner was not at all present at the spot and nothing was recovered from his possession. Mr. Das Mahapatra has further submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge of the initiation of the aforesaid case and a chargesheet was submitted under Section 379 /411/413/414 of IPC and 27(a)(6)(ii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act on 02.09.2010 showing him absconder. After taking cognizance on 02.09.2010, a warrant of arrest was issued on that day against the present petitioner. Though the petitioner was residing at his place within the jurisdiction of Sagarpara Police Station, no warrant of arrest was executed against him after expiry of more than 13 years from the issuance of warrant of arrest. However, the petitioner was arrested on 22.03.2024. There is no material showing that the petitioner was involved with the commission of the offence which took place almost 14 years ago and he was arrested only on the complicity and on the basis of statements of the accused persons.
3. The learned counsel has relied upon several decision reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 2072 ( Ashok Jain V. Narcotics Control Bureau ), AIR 1964 SC 1184 ( Haricharan Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar ), (2019) 16 SCC 547 ( Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. /b>.) and also another decision of Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench in connection with CRR No. 2657 of 2024 (Gopinath Majumder Vs. The State of West Bengal) in support of his contention.
4. Mr. Das Mahapatra has further submitted that in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles of quashing a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In essence the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, such FIR is liable to be quashed.
5. The learned counsel has categorically submitted that there is no material which justifies the entanglement of the petitioner in this case. The basis of his arrest is the statement of the accused which is inadmissible evidence in the eye of law. As there is no other material apart from such inadmissible statemen
