The power to quash a FIR should be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases. Recovery of a psychotropic substance from the accused is a ground for trial and not for quashing the FIR at the present stage of investigation.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C..) for quashing of FIR bearing no. 1032/2019 arising out of Criminal Case No. 4545/2020, registered at Police Station Sultanpuri for offence punishable under Section 27 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (`NDPS Act.).

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had filed the present FIR dated 15.10.2019 alleging that he had found the petitioner/accused allegedly consuming drugs. Thereafter, a notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was issued against petitioner/accused. Subsequently, the petitioner/accused was arrested on 16.10.2019. The learned Trial Court had granted bail to petitioner/accused vide order dated 02.12.2019. The chargesheet was filed on 10.02.2023.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that there is no evidence against the present petitioner to link him with these alleged offences. It is also stated that nothing was recovered at the instance of applicant which is clear from the fact that he was not medically examined on the same date. It is further stated that since there is no material on record, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by proceedings in the present case and the accused may face trial.

4. Learned APP on behalf of the State argues that the charges are yet to be framed in the present case. Further, FSL report in this case has supported the prosecution case.

5. I have heard arguments advanced on behalf of both sides and perused the material on record.

6. This court will refer to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding quashing of FIR.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for quashing of FIR in the State of Haryana & Ors v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, which reads as under:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

1. 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.

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provi