The liability for drug offences requires proof of knowledge or consent from the property owner, which was absent in this case, leading to the quashing of the FIR.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner – accused No.2 seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings registered as an FIR in Crime No.*34/2024-25/76SIE1/763604 dated 30.01.2025 for offences punishable under Section 20 (A), 25 and 8(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’) and Sections 13 (1)(b) and 32 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, ‘the said Act of 1965’) and for other reliefs.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is a practicing advocate having more than 25 years of practice / standing in the profession and he practices both before the Trial Courts and High Court. The petitioner owns and possesses immovable property in land bearing old Sy.No.87 New Sy.No.259/3 of Tarahunase village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru. On 30.01.2025, the respondent registered the aforesaid *Deleted vide Chamber Order dated 21.05.2025 FIR against the petitioner – accused No.2 and his Manager / caretaker Sri. Gokul Newpane for the aforesaid offences on the ground there were 23 Ganja plants weighing about 23.96 kg in the said land. Aggrieved by the impugned complaint and FIR, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner is a practicing advocate residing at Bengaluru far away from the aforesaid land and the petitioner cannot be said to have any knowledge of consumption or distribution of drugs on the aforesaid date in the said land of the petitioner and that in the absence of any material to establish that drugs were being grown in the said land with the knowledge and consent of the petitioner, which would connect him to the alleged drugs, the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserve to be quashed. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of R. Gopal Reddy Vs. Mohammed Mukaram and another – W.P.No.13943/2024 dated 31.08.2024.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. In R. Gopal Reddy’s case supra, under identical circumstances this Court has held as under:

“The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No. 329 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 22(C), 22(A), 27(B), 25, 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘the Act’ for short) and Sections 290 and 294 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri Prabhuling K.Navadgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P.Thejesh, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The story in the case at hand would commence from 16-05-2024 in terms of what is averred in the petition. One M/s Victory (‘the Company’ for short), an event management Company enquires about the property of the petitioner and makes a payment of `1,10,000/- to the property manager towards renting out the property for an event of one person by name Vasu for the celebration of his birthday. On 19-05- 2024 the Company put up invitation titling “Vasu’s birthday – Sunset to Sunrise Victory”. In the wee hours of 20-05-2024, on receipt of credible information that drugs were freely distributed in the said premises, Police conducted a search, which results in seizure of several narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The seiz