IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.15800 of 2025 Date: 02.12.2025 Between:

Shivani @ Chintala Shivani and another ...petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad and another ...respondents

Order

This Criminal Petition is filed to seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.32 and 33 in S.C.NDPS.No.273 of 2022 pending on the file of learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr.Baddam Narsimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jitendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State.

3. On 06.09.2022 upon receiving credible information that few persons were in possession of Psychotropic Substance Drug and upon following the procedure, they set up a trap near Vellanki Foods, Madhura Nagar, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. The police personnel have taken vantage positions near the area and found that some persons gathered and there was exchange of articles in between one another. On seeing the police, the persons tried to escape, however, they were apprehended and were found in possession of MDMA Drug. During the course of investigation, it was found that petitioners were ‘consumers’ who purchased MDMA drug for the purpose of consumption, subsequently, respondent No.2, who is the Additional Inspector of Police, S.R.Nagar Police Station has filed the complaint and FIR was registered for the offences under Section 8(C) read with Sections 22(C) and 27 of NDPS Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’). After investigation, the investigating officer, filed charge sheet vide S.C.NDPS.No.273 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for the offences under Section 8(C) read with Sections 22(C) and 27 of the Act .

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that even according to the prosecution case, they were not involved in drug trafficking or peddling, however, they were identified as consumers on the basis of investigation. He further submitted that a co-ordinate bench of this Court has quashed the proceedings against accused Nos.

29 and 34 by orders dated 25.04.2023 in Crl.P.No.2902 of 2023 and 27.11.2025 in Crl.P.No.12693 of 2025. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief that was granted in favour of accused Nos.29 and 34. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that except for the confessional statement given by the accused No.31 that the petitioners/accused Nos.32 and 33 are customers, no other material has been collected during investigation and no medical tests were conducted upon the petitioners/accused Nos.32 and 33 to make out they are consuming the contraband.

6. Section 64 of the Act empowers the Central Government or the State Government to grant immunity to any person who is directly or indirectly privy to violation of any of the penal provisions of NDPS Act with a view to obtain his evidence for prosecuting the accused in a case. Section 64 of the Act is similar to Section 306 of Cr.P.C whereby a Court can tender pardon. However it is the state or central government that is competent to grant immunity under Section 64.

7. Section 64-A of the Act was substituted by Act 9 of 2001 with effect from 02.10.2001 for the purpose of granting immunity to addicts. Section 64-A of the Act is extracted for the sake of convenience:

“64A. Immunity from prosecution to addicts volunteering for treatment.—Any addict, who is charged with an offence punishable under section 27 or with offences involving small quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, who voluntarily seeks to undergo medical treatment for de-addiction from a hospital or an institution maintained or recognized by the Government or a local authority and undergoes such treatmen