Dismissed¶35

Titus Jabakumar v. The State by, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Oct 2025CRL OP/27660/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; delay in filing final report under NDPS Act not a ground to quash FIR; Section 8(b) NDPS Act, 1985; Section 528 BNSS; Cr.No.174 of 2023; T7 Otteri Police Station, Tambaram; recovery of opium; independent witness; Madras High Court; Crl.O.P.No.27660 of 2025; Crl.M.P.No.18763 of 2025; N. Sathish Kumar, J.; direction to complete investigation within one month.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the FIR declined; Criminal Original Petition dismissed with a direction to the respondent police to conduct and complete the investigation and file the final report within one month from receipt of a copy of the order; connected miscellaneous petition closed. The contention regarding absence of an independent witness was raised but not separately dealt with. ¶35

Titus Jabakumar Vs The State by, The Inspector of Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.OP.No.27660 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.27660 of 2025 and

¶7

Crl.M.P.No.18763 of 2025

Titus Jabakumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.State rep. by

The Inspector of Police, T7 Otteri Police Station,

¶13

Tambaram.

¶14

2.R.Santhana Krishnan

¶15

Grl PC 1678 T7 Otteri Police Station, Tambaram.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records in Cr.No.174 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the same against the petitioner herein.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ranjith Kumar

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja, GA (Crl. Side)

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

Crl.OP.No.27660 of 2025

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Challenging the FIR filed as against the petitioner in Cr.No.174 of

¶25

2023 by the first respondent herein, the present Petition has been filed.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case in Cr.No.174 of 2023 has been filed as against the petitioner under Section 8(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985. He contended that since no final report has been filed for more than one year as per the provisions under NDPS Act and also that no independent witness to corroborate the recovery of opium from the petitioner, the FIR has to be quashed. Hence, he prays for quashing of the FIR.

¶28

As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, merely

¶29

because of delay in filing the final report in the case cannot be a valid ground to quash the FIR. In view of the same and also taking note of the

¶30

Page 2 of 4

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Crl.OP.No.27660 of 2025

¶33

nature of offence, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However,

¶34

the respondent police is directed to conduct and complete the investigation and to file the final report in this case, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35