Allowed¶42

Smt. Syeda Yasmeen Bano v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2025CRL.P/13768/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.P No. 13768 of 2025 (482 Cr.PC / 528 BNSS); quashing of criminal proceedings; FIR/charge sheet under Ss.20(b), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25, 8(c) NDPS Act, 1985; vehicle-owner arraigned as accused No.3; absence of knowledge and of knowing permission; S.25 NDPS not attracted; abuse of process of law; Spl.C.No.62/2025, VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru; Crime No.18/2022/23/26IE/260205; Excise Police Station Mysuru Range-2; Ganja 2.200 kg; Honda Dio KA-55/EC-1017; decided 25.10.2025 by Justice Mohammad Nawaz.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.3 in Spl.C.No.62/2025 pending before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysuru. ¶42

Smt. Syeda Yasmeen Bano Vs State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused No.3 in Spl.C.No.62/2025 pending before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysuru.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner, arraigned solely as the owner of the vehicle allegedly used by accused Nos.1 and 2 to transport Ganja, are an abuse of process of law liable to be quashed, in the absence of material showing her knowledge of the offence or that she knowingly permitted use of the vehicle so as to attract Section 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

¶5

Court's answer

The petitioner was admittedly neither present at the spot nor found in possession of any contraband; she was arraigned as an accused only on the ground that she is the owner of the two-wheeler seized in the case, allegedly used by accused Nos.1 and 2 to transport the contraband.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

There is no material collected or placed to show that the petitioner had any knowledge about commission of the offence by accused Nos.1 and 2 or that she has knowingly permitted them to use the vehicle; accordingly, Section 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is not attracted.

¶4

Key takeaways

In that view of the matter, the proceedings now pending against the petitioner are an abuse of process of law.ratio¶5
The petition is allowed and the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioner/accused No.3, pending in Spl.C.No.62/2025 on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysuru, is quashed.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Mohammad Nawaz, J.) allowed a criminal petition filed under S.482 Cr.P.C. (also under S.528 BNSS) and quashed the NDPS proceedings in Spl.C.No.62/2025 against the petitioner, arraigned as accused No.3 solely as owner of a Honda Dio (KA-55/EC-1017) allegedly used by accused Nos.1 and 2 to transport about 2.200 kg of Ganja. Noting that she was neither present at the spot nor in possession of contraband, and that no material showed knowledge of the offence or knowing permission of the vehicle's use so as to attract S.25 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Court held the pending proceedings to be an abuse of process of law and quashed them.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42300 CRL.P No. 13768 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13768 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SYEDA YASMEEN BANO W/O YASEEN SHARIFF, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, (PRESENT AGE) R/AT NO. 3144/4, EREKATTE STREET, LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GAURAV SUBRAMANYAM, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

BY EXCISE POLICE STATION (MYSURU RANGE-2), MYSURU DISTRICT, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

EXCISE INSPECTOR

¶16

(EXCISE POLICE STATION, MYSURU RANGE-2) EXCISE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 008

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42300 CRL.P No. 13768 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN SPL.C.NO.62/2025 (CR.NO.18/2022/23/26IE/260205)PENDING ON THE FILE OF VII ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT AT MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 20(b), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25, 8(c) OF NDPS ACT.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Petitioner is seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against her, pending in Spl.C.No.62/2025, on the file of the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysuru.

¶26

A suo motu case was registered by the Excise

¶27

Police against accused Nos.1 and 2, on an allegation that on 20.09.2022 at about 05.30 p.m, they were carrying

¶28

Ganja weighing about 2.200 kilogram in a Honda Dio bearing registration number KA-55/EC-1017. FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42300 CRL.P No. 13768 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. While filing charge sheet, petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.3, on the ground that, she is the owner of the vehicle, which was allegedly used for transporting the Ganja.

¶32

Admittedly, the petitioner was neither present

¶33

at the spot nor she was found in possession of any contraband. She has been arraigned as an accused only on the ground that she is the owner of the two wheeler which was seized in the case, allegedly used by accused Nos.1 and 2 to transport the contraband. As per the explanation of the petitioner, accused No.1 is her brother, who had taken the two wheeler on the relevant day and she has no knowledge about the offence allegedly committed by the accused.

¶34

There is no material collected or placed to

¶35

show that the petitioner had any knowledge about commission of the offence by accused Nos.1 and 2 or she

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42300 CRL.P No. 13768 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

has knowingly permitted the said accused to use the vehicle, so as to attract Section 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

¶39

In that view of the matter, the proceedings now pending against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law, Hence the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i. Petition is allowed .

¶42

ii. The entire proceeding initiated against the petitioner/accused No.3, pending in Spl.C. No.62/2025 on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysuru is quashed.

¶43

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶44

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK

Smt. Syeda Yasmeen Bano v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Syeda Yasmeen Bano v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash @ Balaji @ Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Thankachan Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt Shakila P Shetty Vs Sri Ramesh K K

Sri Nikil @ Nikil Kumar R Vs State of Karnataka

Kalpesh Kothari Vs State of Karnataka

Kalpesh Kothari, Vs State of Karnataka