Allowed

Sri. Kanishq Reddy Papineni v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2024CRL.P/3199/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, accused No.10 in an NDPS case, sought quashing of proceedings as prosecution relied only on co-accused statements under Section 67 NDPS Act, with no CDR or recovery connecting him. Holding such statements cannot be used against him and no material linked him to the offences, the High Court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR Cr.No.101/2021 of Kadugodi P.S., pending in Spl.Case No.73/2023, quashed against the petitioner.

Sri. Kanishq Reddy Papineni Vs State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:48018 CRL.P No. 3199 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3199 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. KANISHQ REDDY PAPINENI S/O. SAI PAPINENI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT S2, AH HABITATE, 12 PALMGROVE, 4^TH A CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, HRBR, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KADUGODI P.S., REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶15

B.S. ASHOK BY POLICE INSPECTOR, ANTI NARCOTIC WING, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, BANGALORE CITY - 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.S.P.P.)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.10, IN AT KADUGODI P.S. CRIME NO. 101/2021 ON 29.05.2021, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 8(C), 20(II)(B), 21(C), 22(C), 23(C), 29 OF NDPS ACT 1985 AND SECTION 14 AND 14(B) OF THE

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:48018 CRL.P No. 3199 of 2022

¶20

FOREIGNERS ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT (NDPS), BENGALURU (CCH-33) VIDE ANNEXURE- A AND B.

¶21

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner being accused No.10 in Cr.No.101/2021 of Kadugodu Police Station now pending in Spl.Case No. 73/2023 on the file of the learned *VIII^th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(ii)(b), 21(c), 22(c), 23(c) 29(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act), Section 14, 14(b) of the Foreigners Act 1946.

¶25

Brief facts of the case are that, on the basis of credible information received, raid was held in the house of one Sri.Shrinivas and accused Nos.1 to 6 were apprehended. Contraband was seized in the said premises and voluntary statements of accused Nos.1 to 6 were recorded. On the basis

¶26

Corrected vide Chambers order dated 6/1/25

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:48018 CRL.P No. 3199 of 2022

¶28

of voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 to 6, accused Nos.7 to 9 were also apprehended and their voluntary statements were recorded. Accused Nos.7 to 9 are said to have referred the name of the present petitioner in their voluntary statement as he is also involved in commission of the offences. Thereafter, on 03.06.2021 the present petitioner was apprehended and later enlarged on bail. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 11 for the above said offences.

¶29

Heard Sri. Santhosh S Nagarale, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent. Perused the materials on records.

¶30

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶31

“Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:48018 CRL.P No. 3199 of 2022

¶33

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶34

R E A S O N S

¶35

The materials on record including the charge sheet discloses that initially FIR came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 6 for the above said offences. After holding the raid in an apartment standing in the name of one Srinivas, the contraband including MDMA Ecstasy, LSD strips, Ganja were seized under the mahazar in the presence of panchas. During investigation, it is stated that accused No.7 to 9 were apprehended and they have referred the name of the petitioner in their voluntary statement. On 03.06.2021, the petitioner was apprehended and a mobile phone from his custody was recovered. Apart from the mobile phone, nothing incriminating was recovered from the petitioner or at his instance.

¶36

On going through the entire charge sheet, the prosecution is relying on the voluntary statement of accused Nos.7 to 9 to contend that the petitioner has committed the offences. Even the CDR is not produced to contend that the petitioner was in contact with the co-accused by using the

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48018 CRL.P No. 3199 of 2022

¶38

mobile phone which was seized in the matter. Therefore, for all practical purposes, prosecution is placing reliance on the statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act to implicate the petitioner.

¶39

It is settled position of law that the statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as confessional statement in the trial for the offences under the Act. This position of law is made clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various decisions i.e., Tofan Singh V. State of Tamil

¶40

Nadu¹ , State V. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta² .

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Crl.P.No.1850/2023 dated 19.06.2024 where the Court has referred to a similar

¶42

case and the petition was allowed holding that the statement of the co-accused recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 67 of NDPS Act is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and therefore, the same cannot be the basis to prosecute the petitioner. When admittedly there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner to the offences in question, except the so

¶43

1 (2021) 4 SCC 1

¶44

2 (2022) 12 SCC 633

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:48018 CRL.P No. 3199 of 2022

¶46

called voluntary statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, I am of the opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is in abuse of process of law.

¶47

Under these circumstance, I am of the opinion that there are no reasons to permit the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioner as it would amount to infringement of the right of the petitioner and also abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed.

¶48

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶51

(ii) The FIR registered in Cr.No.101/2021 of Kadugodu Police Station now pending in Spl.Case No. 73/2023 on the file of the learned *VIII^th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(ii)(b), 21(c), 22(c), 23(c) 29(a) of the NDPS

¶52

Corrected vide Chambers order dated 6/1/25

¶53

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:48018 CRL.P No. 3199 of 2022

¶54

Act, Section 14, 14(b) of the Foreigners Act 1946, is hereby quashed against the petitioner.

¶55

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶56

BH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28

Sri. Kanishq Reddy Papineni v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kanishq Reddy Papineni v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghu M S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S v Srinivas Murthy HUF Vs M/S Savi Enterprises

Shri a Mohan Das Vs Shri Himanshu Gupta

Ananth Vs the State of Karnataka

Ms Samara Mahindra Vs M/S Mahaveer Invetsments

Sri Jayachandra Naidu Vs State of Karnataka