IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.15901 of 2025 Date: 03.12.2025 Between:

Malkapuram Sai Sudhakar Goud ...petitioner AND The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, R.R.District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another ...respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. No.1373 of 2025 on the file of Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.4 for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”)

2. Heard Sri G.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri N.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.V.Jithendar Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has not committed the offence and that he was falsely implicated in the present crime based on the alleged confession statement recorded in police custody. The said statement cannot be taken into consideration. He further submitted that the alleged contraband, namely Alprazolam, was seized from the possession of accused No.2 only. However, the petitioner was implicated as an accused solely on the ground that he is a partner in the toddy shop along with accused No.2. The ingredients of the offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act are not attracted against the petitioner. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that accused No.2 and petitioner/accused No.4 are partners in the toddy shop and that they have been running the said shop while mixing Alprazolam (contraband) in the toddy. Whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation, and particularly when the investigation is still in progress, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he and accused No.2 are running the toddy shop at Daultabad of Hathnoora Mandal. It is not in dispute that the contraband was seized from the possession of accused No.2, who is the partner of the petitioner. Whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation.

6. Hence, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are only confined for the purpose of deciding this case.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

03.12.2025 sa