Siddarth @ Sidharth @ Chinnu Vs State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2025)

Siddarth @ Sidharth @ Chinnu Vs State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2129/2024 arising out of Crime No.478/2023, on the file of the II ACJM, Bengaluru, in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

Issue for consideration

Whether the further proceedings in C.C.No.2129/2024 (arising out of Crime No.478/2023, Section 20(b) NDPS Act) against the petitioner – Accused No.2, arraigned solely on the confessional statement of co-accused No.1 with no corroborative material, amount to abuse of process and deserve to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Court's answer

Except the sole alleged confessional statement of co-accused No.1, there is absolutely no material on record to incriminate the petitioner: the alleged subject drug/psychotropic substance was not recovered from his custody, he was arraigned solely on accused No.1's alleged confession, and no witness states anything as regards the petitioner having sold the alleged substance to accused No.1 or his involvement in the alleged offence.

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of any corroborative material, the sole confessional statements of co-accused can neither be relied upon, nor made the basis to incriminate the other accused persons.

Key takeaways

Continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law and hence deserves to be quashed.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS Act, S.20(b) – Quashing under S.482 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner (Accused No.2) arraigned solely on the alleged confessional statement of co-accused No.1 (Abhishek); alleged psychotropic substance not recovered from petitioner's custody and no witness implicates him – Held: in the absence of any corroborative material, the sole confessional statement of a co-accused can neither be relied upon nor made the basis to incriminate other accused persons (relying on Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. NCB, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1213; Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1; and prior decisions of this Court – Mehaboob Doula, Crl.P.No.5337/2017; Shiv Swaroop, W.P.No.11823/2023; Parithosh Chandrashekar Kulkarni, Crl.P.No.1850/2023) – Continuation of proceedings in C.C.No.2129/2024 (Crime No.478/2023, II ACJM, Bengaluru) qua the petitioner an abuse of process – Petition allowed; proceedings quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1869 CRL.P No. 7494 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7494 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

SIDDARTH @ SIDHARTH @ CHINNU S/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NEAR NELAMANGALA BUS STOP, NELAMANGALA TOWN, BANGALORE DISTRICT 562123

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SUNIL S NARAYAN.,ADVOCATE) AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY 560 109 REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU 560 001.

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka

VINAY K L (POLICE OFFICER ) AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO. POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY 560 109

(BY SMT. M.M. WAHEEDA, HCGP)

…RESPONDENTS

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.2129/2024 i.e., CR.NO.478/2023 AGAINST PETITIONER i.e., ACCUSED NO.2 PENDING BEFORE THE II ACJM, BANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 20(B) NDPS REGISTERED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT POLICE i.e., THALAGHATTAPURA P.S., AT ANNEXURE-D.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1869 CRL.P No. 7494 of 2024

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner – accused No.2 seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2129/2024 arising out of Crime No.478/2023, on the file of the II ACJM, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the NDPS Act”).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 – PSI lodged a complaint, which is registered as an FIR in Crime No.478/2023 on 29.12.2023 against petitioner – accused No.2 and one Abhishek, accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. According to the complaint, respondent No.2 found accused No.1 in possession of the alleged subject drug / psychotropic substance in a black bag and in view of the alleged confessional statement given by accused No.1 to the effect that he purchased the same from the petitioner, the petitioner was arraigned as accused No.2 in the FIR. Subsequently, after investigation the petitioner arraigned the aforesaid person and petitioner as accused Nos.1 and 2,

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1869 CRL.P No. 7494 of 2024

respectively, after recording the statements of 10 charge sheet witnesses and filed the charge sheet accordingly. In this context, it is relevant to state even as per the charge sheet material comprising of the statements of witnesses, documents, mahazar, material objects etc., the alleged subject drug/psychotropic substance was not recovered from the custody of the petitioner, who was arraigned solely on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of accused No.1. So also, none of the witnesses have stated anything as regards the petitioner having sold the alleged substance to accused No.1 nor stated anything as regards involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. It is therefore clear that except the sole alleged confessional statement of the coaccused No.1, there is absolutely no material on record to incriminate the petitioner for the alleged offences.

It is well settled that in the absence of any corroborative material, the sole confessional statements of co-accused can neither be relied upon, nor made the basis to incriminate the other accused persons as held by the Apex Court in the case of Balwinder Singh (Binda) Vs. NCB – (2023) SCC OnLIne SC 1213 and Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamilnadu –

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1869 CRL.P No. 7494 of 2024

(2021) 4 SCC 1 , as well as by this Court in the case of Mehaboob Doula Vs. The State of Karnataka – Crl.P.No.5337/2017 dated 29.08.2019, Shiv Swaroop Vs. State of Karnataka – W.P.No.11823/2023 dated 06.03.2024 and Parithosh Chandrashekar Kulkarni Vs. State of Karnataka –

Crl.P.No.1850/2023 dated 19.07.2024.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings q u a the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law and hence, the same deserves to be quashed.

In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed .

(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2129/2024 arising out of Crime No.478/2023, on the file of the II ACJM, Bengaluru, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed.

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

MDS/BMC:m List No.: 2 Sl No.: 42