Dismissed¶27

Pratham Lodha v. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Mar 2026CRL OP/6696/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of NDPS FIR; petitioner arrayed as A6 on co-accused confession; not named in FIR; seizure of 3 grams ganja and mobile phone; mobile phone call records and tower location; Section 482 Cr.P.C; Section 538 BNSS; Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 NDPS Act 1985; Crime No. 682 of 2024; Choolaimedu Police Station; Madras High Court; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Though the petitioner's name is not found in the FIR, he was arrayed as an accused based on the co-accused's confession; 3 grams of contraband (ganja) and a mobile phone were seized from him, and the mobile phone call records and tower location confirm all the accused were in constant contact with each other. ¶25

Pratham Lodha Vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 6696 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

CRL OP No. 6696 of 2026 and CRL MP No.4883 of 2026

Pratham Lodha

Petitioner(s)

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police F-5, Choolaimedu Police Station, Chennai.

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, 538 of BNSS, Act, to call for the records and quash the FIR registered in Crime No. 682 of 2024 on the file of F-5 Choolaimedu Police Station, Chenani under Sections 8(c),20(b)(ii)(B), and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985 against the petitioner and issue any other orders.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Ms.G.Uma Maheswari For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

CRL OP No. 6696 of 2026

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner has been arrayed as accused in Crime No.682 of 2024 for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and has filed the present petition to quash the FIR.

¶19

The contention of the petitioner is that he is not a named accused. The petitioner has been arrayed primarily as A6, on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused, and he is now facing the above case. Further, he submitted that no incriminating material has been seized from the petitioner. Hence, he has filed the present petition.

¶20

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the FIR was initially registered against the two persons, namely Gokul and Akash, and the petitioner has been arrayed as A6. During the investigation A1 and A2 were arrested and thereafter, based on their confession, other accused were arrayed. The accused no.4, namely Amit Shah was arrested, based on his confession, the petitioner was searched and 3 grams of Ganja and a mobile phone were seized from him. The mobile phone records confirmed that all the accused were in regular contact, exchanging messages and actively involved in the offence. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested.

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

CRL OP No. 6696 of 2026

¶24

Heard both sides and perused the available materials on record.

¶25

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it is seen that though the petitioner’s name is not found in the FIR, based on the confession of the co-accused, he has been arrayed as an accused. Further, 3 grams of contraband (ganja) and mobile phone have been seized. The mobile phone call records and tower location confirm that all the accused were in constant contact with each other.

¶26