Quashed

Aruva Sai Karthik v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Nov 2024CRLP/13906/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings against four accused individuals in an NDPS case involving a rave party. Ruling that mere presence at the scene without specific allegations of role played or tests conducted for drug consumption was insufficient to attract criminal liability, the Court dismissed the offence allegations. However, it misaligned the subject with

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against accused Nos. 12, 20, 46 and 66 in S.C.NDPS No. 5 of 2023 required to be quashed.

Aruva Sai Karthik Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t^{3257 l}

¶2

rN rHE^{HrGHcouRIfS$DtIEABltrEoF TELANGANA}

¶3

I\AONDAY ,THE^{EIGHTEENTHDAY OF NOXEMBER} '''"''"iwo rnbusAND AND TWENTY FouR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICEJUWADI SRIDEVI}

¶6

CRIMINAL^{PETITIONNO:13906 oF 2024}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Aruva Sai^{Karthik, S/o Shiva PrasadAge 28 Years' Occ Private Jobe' R/o} FIat No. 102,^{Anand Br;;;;;cotonv,e"navyasFantastica' Banjarahills'Road} No.'12, HYderabad.

¶9

Vadde Bhargav,^{S/o Purushotham, Age 27 Years,Occ'student'R/o H No' 1-} 30t 19t2, Sanathnagar,^HYderabad

¶10

Gudisela Rahul, S7o^{Naisingarao'Age. 2B' years, Occ'Business,R/o SRT-} 655, Sanathnagar, HYderabad.

¶11

Kancherla Akhil,^{S/o lvlanohar,Age} 25 Years, Occ. Driver,^{R/o B/35, BK} Guda, SR Nagar, HYderabad ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED^{No.12,20,46and66}

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Rep.^{by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the} State of Telangana, Hyderabad^{Throughthe StationHouse Officer,} Narayanpur P.S., YadadriBhongiri^District.

¶14

2 Ch. Subhash Rao, S/o not Known,^{Aged Major, Occ. Sub lnspectorof Police,} Narayanapurp.S., Yadadri- Bhonagiri^District.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.^{prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,the High Court may} be pleased to quash the Charge Sheet in SC NDPS No. 5/2023, on the file of the Honble 1st Additional District and Sessions Court, at thongir, Yadadri-Bhongir District against the Petitioners/Accused No. 12, 20, 46 and 66 herein.

¶17

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including attendance of the Petitioners in SC NDPS No.512023, on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional District and Sessions Court, at Bhongir, Yadadri-Bhongir District against the Petitioner/Accused No. 12,20, 46 and 66 herein pending disposal of the criminal Petition.

¶19

/ 4

¶20

orouno'.|'to?"t'3?,L;T,"g^:n^{for hearins, upon perusrns} rhe l/emorandum or s,i o o rv x u"n r r"ol il i',ll * r'u,ij..{!dj,: "?^T: "ff .^{Tff , ;x".,Tru#_ :} veeramalta, the Additionar_pu,or"_prlrJ"r"t;;F;;,;, behatf of the Respondenr No. t and none appeared for ttre Responalri ri""zl

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.13906 of 2024

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Petitioners, who are accused Nos.l2, 20, 46 and 66 in S.C.NDPS.No.5 of 2023 on the file of I Additional District & Session Court, at Bhongiri, Yadadri-Bhongiri District, registered for the offences under Sections 8 (c), 20 (b), 25, 27 (a),29,37 of NDPS Act, 1985, Section 34 r/w. 15 of TS Excise Act, Section 5l (b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 3 (l) of Epidemic decease act,, 1897 and 188, 294 of IpC, are seeking to quash the proceedings against them. 2. Heard Sri D.Mallikarjun, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record. J The case of the 2nd respondent - de facto complainant is that having received the information regarding conducting an event in the farm house located in the outskirts of Narayanpur Village with DJ sound and that several persons gathered, the police went to the premises and found 500 members participating in the event. It was found that the members were inhaling ganja,

¶26

¶27

consuming alcoholic drinks, food and dancing to the DJ sound. The police suspected it as a rave party. The police conducted search at the premises and seized 200 grams of Ganja in a cover and an iphone from the possession of accused No.2; 2l entry tickets of the rave party were seized from accused No.4; (3) LSD blots from accused No.6 and black colored iphone from accused No.7. Further, accused Nos.2 to 6 confessed the said offence of organizing a rave party and recovery panchanama was arso drafted. Thereafter, the police concluded investigation and found that all the accused Nos.l to I05 who gathered at the premises are liable under various offences punishable under penal provisions, D.M. Act and Epidemic Disease Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners wourd submit that the petitioners are innocent and has nothing to do with the rave parfy that was going on. They were apprehended on the road and falsely implicated in the said case, for which reason, the proceedings against the petitioners have to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, leamed Additional public prosecutor would submit that accused Nos.l to 105 have violated the directions of the Government in pandemic period, for which I /

¶28

-:7

¶29

¶30

reason, they have to be prosecuted for the above offences and it

¶31

is for the trial Court to decide the compliciry of the accused.

¶32

As seen from the incident, the petitioners who were

¶33

arrayed as accused Nos.l2, 20, 46 and 66 were found in the premises of farm house where the alleged rave party was going on. It is not the case that these petitioners were subjected to any

¶34

tests to confirm that they were either inhaling ganja or they are under the influence of alcohol. Unless police specifies as to the role played by the petitioners that they were found with any substancd that was prohibited, the petitioners can be made punishable under any ofthe penal provisions. Mere presence of the petitioners at the scene would not attract any of the offences alleged. Under Section 195(a)(l) of Cr.P.C., the Court is in fact prohibited from taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC, unless it is filed by the^{concernedpublic} servant. Since no specific role is attributed to the^petitioners and

¶35

( (

¶36

assuming that the petitioners were found at the scene^would not entail the prosecution of the^petitioners for the offences alleged.

¶37

Hence, the proceedings against the^petitioners are^liable to be quashed.

¶38

¶39

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the

¶40

proceedings against the petitioners _ accused Nos.l2, 20,46 and 66 in S.C.NDPS.No.5 of 2023 pending on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Court at Bhongir, yadadri_ Bhongir District, are hereby quashed.

¶41

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

Sd/- T. JAYASREE ASSISTAN REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SE N OFFICER

To,

, District and Sessions Court, at Bhongir, yadadri-Bhonsir I[:rJ"foo,,ionat 2- The Station House Office_r,Narayanapur police Station, Rachakonda. 3. one CC to SRt DoNKUR| rr,lalrlxnniUN, ao?J"," IopUCl 4. Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court iorihJ-dtate of fetangana at HyderabadlOUTl. 5. Two CD Copies.'

AR/DL

-o

(

HIGH COURT

DATED:181'1112O24

ORDER

CRLP.No.13906 of 2024

¶55

6Irli o rr-.
(.o
0 0 JAil ?025 I
x
oot5
t
t
D,\J PAlcrl c

¶56

ALLOWING THE CRL.P.

Aruva Sai Karthik v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aruva Sai Karthik v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Harish D Vs State of Telangana

Hamadan Ahmed Ali Musaieed Almazrouei Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Arifuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Dandem Uday Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Farhana Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Praveen Kumar @ Builder Praveen, Vs The State of Telangana