Order

Grievance in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2867/2025 and S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 532/2025

1. By way of filing the instant miscellaneous petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners have assailed the legality and validity of FIR No. 289/2024 dated 24.10.2024 registered at Police Station Lohawat, District Phalodi, for the offences punishable under Sections 8/22 of the NDPS Act, and have prayed for quashing of the aforesaid FIR along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. As per the prosecution case reflected from the FIR, the police party intercepted the vehicle in question and allegedly recovered contraband MDMA from the possession of the accused persons, whereafter proceedings under the NDPS Act were initiated and investigation commenced. The petitioners have, however, set up a completely contrary version and contended that they were unlawfully picked up by the police party from another place within the jurisdiction of Police Station Matoda and were thereafter falsely implicated in a fabricated narcotics case. It has been alleged that the recovery proceedings were manipulated and that CCTV footage of Toll Plaza as well as other electronic evidence would demonstrate falsity in the prosecution story.

3. It has further been averred that the police officials allegedly demanded illegal gratification and, upon refusal thereof, falsely foisted the present case upon the petitioners. The petitioners have also questioned the legality of the search and seizure proceedings by alleging non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act and have asserted that the investigation is biased inasmuch as relevant electronic and documentary evidence, including CCTV footage, call details and tower locations, has not been properly considered by the investigating agency. It has thus been contended that the allegations levelled in the FIR are wholly false, fabricated and engineered and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. Hence, the present petitions.

Observations

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, this Court finds that the principal grievance raised by the petitioners pertains to the correctness and genuineness of the prosecution story, particularly the manner in which the alleged recovery of contraband MDMA was effected and the sequence of events narrated in the FIR. The defence sought to be projected by the petitioners is that the entire recovery has been planted and the case has been fabricated after their alleged unlawful detention from another place. However, at this stage, this Court cannot enter into an adjudicatory exercise for the purpose of conclusively determining whether the prosecution version is false or whether the defence version put forth by the petitioners is correct.

6. It is trite law that at the stage of considering a petition for quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry into disputed questions of fact or to undertake appreciation of evidence. The narration contained in the FIR and the manner of alleged recovery constitute the foundation of the prosecution case, whereas the plea raised by the petitioners regarding false implication, prior detention and manipulated recovery constitutes their defence narrative. Such defence narrative cannot be accepted in advance so as to completely dislodge the prosecution case at the threshold itself. This Court does not possess any litmus test whereby, at this preliminary stage, it may conclusively hold that the entire prosecution story is wholly cooked up or fabricated.

7. Merely because the petitioners have raised a defence alleging that the recovery was planted and the proceedings were manipulated by the police officials, the same cannot ipso facto be accepted as gospel truth so