Allowed

Kush Kumar Mishra alias Kush Kumar, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Oct 2025CRLP/12962/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 528 BNSS to quash charge sheet in NDPS case. Court allowed petition, quashing proceedings against petitioner who was not found at the scene and against whom no contraband was seized, relying on precedent that confession before police is insufficient without recovery.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet quashed against petitioner in S.C.NDPS.No.275 of 2022.

Kush Kumar Mishra alias Kush Kumar, Vs The State of… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12962 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Kush Kumar Mishra alias Kush Kumar,, S/o. Nagendra Mishra, aged about 23 years, Occ. Quality Analyst - Cognizant R/o, Plot No.4 -92, JPN Nagar, Miyapur. Hyderabad. Telangana State.

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused No. 1 8

¶9

AND

¶10

'l . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court. Hyderabad.

¶11

...Respondent No.1

¶12

B. Ravinder, lnspector of Police, Karkhana PS, Hyderabad.

¶13

...Respondent No.2/De-facto Complainant

¶14

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 quash the charge sheet dated 19.102022 in S.C. NDPS No.275 of 2O22, on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan .Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad based on FIR in Cr. No. 41 of 2022 registered before the Karkhana Police Station, Hyderabad District.

¶15

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025

¶16

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 against the Petitioner in S.C NDPS No. 275 of 2022 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad until the disposal of the present quash petition.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing ther Memorandum oi Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurnents of M/s. Thakur Poornima, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri V.J ithender Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutcr on behalf of the Respondent No.1 arrd none appeared for the Respondent N:,.2.

¶18

The Court made the lollowing: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SMT, JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12962 of 2025

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 B in S.C.NDPS.No.275 of 2022, on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section B(c) read with 20(b) (ii) (B), 22(b) and 27 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶22

Heard Sri Thakur Kiran Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner who appeared through online as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

¶23

Perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar matter i.e. in Crl.P.No.55O2 of 2023, lhis Court has considered the facts of the said case and it was observed that the accused is not found with possession of any narcotic substance and he has been arrayed as an accused only on the basis of his own admission of purchasing and consuming the narcotic

¶24

¶25

ETD,J Crl.P 17962 2025 ..

¶26

¶27

substance. Thr: Court observed that the said adrnission is not sustainable as r. is made before a Police Officer.

¶28

In the pre,sent case also, the petitioner herein/accused No.18

¶29

was not found at the place of the offence and his arrest is on the basis of the ornfession made by one of the accused and the petitioner was neither found in possession of Ganja nor was any substantial evid,rnce found against him and his case rs similar as in Crl.P.No.5502 of 2023 and in view of the findings therein, this Court is inclined le^,1uash the charge sheet as against the petitioner herein/accused No.18 in S.C.NDPS.No.275 of 2022, on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Section B(c) read with 20(b) (ii) (B), 22(b) and 27 o't the Narcc,tic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 based on the F R registered in Crime No.41 of 2022. of Karkhana Police Station, l-lyderabad District

¶30

E Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶31

6 Miscellancous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶32

SD/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ \ //TRUE COPYII F-

¶33

<br><br>F-
,SECTION OFFICER

¶34

To,

¶35

1 The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Xl Additionzr Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Secunderabad 3 The Station House Officer, Karkhana police Station, Hyderabaa

¶36

One CC to Mis. Thakur Poornima Advocate [OPUC]

¶37

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶38

Two CD Copies

YJR iPSL

E-

lr l'r

HIGH COURT

DATED:08 t10t2025

\ \

ORDER

.:
', :)
, i) 16 0il zuli
)r,

¶49

CRLP.No.12962 ot 2025

¶50

CRIMINAL I'ETITION IS ALLOWED.

¶51

",.d* %..

¶52

¶53

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.55O2 of 2O23

¶54

ORDER:

¶55

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.,') by petitioner/accused No. 15 praying this Court to quash the proceedings in FIR No. LO of 2022 on the file of the Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the Narcotic Dtrgs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act, 1985J and Section la (a) (b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (for short 'the Act, 7946').

¶56

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.15 in the above crime and he is a Post Graduate in Finance. Basing on a report of Sri K Nagaiah, Additiona-l Inspector of Police, Panj agutta Police Station, Hyderabad on O6.01.2072 at 71:OO hours stating that at about 06:O0 hours he received information from Sri B.Ashok Reddy, Sub-lnspector of Police, Task Force, North

¶57

¶58

GAC, J Ot. P.No.5502 of 2023

¶59

Zone, that two persons were in possession of huge quantity of Narcotic sr--bstance drug i.e., Cocaine and were trying to sell the sar:Le to the needy persons near GVK Ma.ll, Panjagutta. lr.yderabad and on obtaining the permission to verify the v< racit5r of the information, the Government were Officia1s (Sr: V.Rahul Naik and Sri T.Ranrula) appointed as rnediators and they along with mr.diators and staff of P.S. Panjugutta at O6:45 hours proceecled to GVK Mall and forrnd two persons in suspicious cir<;umstances. In an attempt to flee from the Police, they were r:aught. On search, Polir:e found 83 small sachets suspected and later found it to b,r a narcotic substance Cocaine.

¶60

03.^'l'he search also revealed that the n-r.ain accused to be one A1 Chukwu Ogbonna David (Tony) who is allegedly an international drug peddler. Later a case in Crime No. lt-t of 2022 was registered for the of1:n6s5 ,n6.. Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the Act. 1985 and Section 1a (a) (b) of the Act, 1946.

¶61

¶62

G.tc, J Ctl.P.No.5502 of 2021

¶63

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the Remand Report, dated 20.Ol .2022, the petitioner/accused No. 15 is charged under Section 27 of the Act, 1985, wherein it states that:

¶64

"Thus the arrested accused persons AI committed offence which i-s lioble to be puni-shed Us. 8(C) r/w 2o(b)(i)(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 and the accused AlO to A22 haue committed offence uLhich is liable to be punished U/sec. 27 of Narcotic Drugs and. Psgchotropic Substances Act 1985."

¶65

It is further submitted that in light of the abovementioned alleged charge and provision, the Petitioner/ accused No.15 has not committed any offence, much less the offences alleged against him in the Remand Report and that the entire material referred against the Petitioner/accused No.3 in the Remand Report and the FIR does not disclose any prima facie case against the Petitioner/ accused No.15 for the alleged offences under Section 27 of the Act, 1985 and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No.15.

¶66

¶67

GAC, J Crl.P.No.5502 of 2021

¶68

Hr:ard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the responrle rts-State and perused the record.

¶69

07 . Lr:arned Assistant Public Prosecu tor for the

¶70

rcspondcnts-State vehemently opposed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.lO of 2022 on ther file of the Station House Ofhcer, Panjagutta Polir:e Station, I-lyderabad, r-egistered for the offences under Section 8 (c) read with Se,:tion 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the Act, 1985 and Section 1a (a) (b) of the Act, 1946. On written instruclions, he has submitted that all the witnesses are being examined in the case and the petitioner was addicted to consume cocaine and also rr:ceiving drugs from accused No L and paid Rs.8,OOO/- l:,er gram and as such 8 times he received drug from accuserl No.1 and that it is not a ht case for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner / accused No.15.

¶71

Iiection 27 of tlrc Act, 1985 reads as under:

¶72

"27'. htni-shment for consumption of ang rtarcotic d*g or psgchotropic substance. W'ltoeuer, con:;umes any narcotic drug or psychotropic sr.tlr stance shall be puni.shable,

¶73

¶74

GAC, J Crt.P.l\o.5502 of 2023

¶75

(a) uhere the narcotic drug or psAchotropic substance consumed is cocaine, morphine, diacetyl-morphine or ang other._ narcotic dntg or ony psychotropic substance as maA be specifted in thi-s behalf bg the Central Gouernment bg notification in the OJficiaI Gazette, with rigorous imprkonment for a term uhich mag extend to one Aear, or uith fine which mag extend to tutenty thousand ntpees; or tuith both; and

¶76

(b) where the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance consumed is other than those specified in or under clause (a), with impisonment for a term which may extend to sk months, or utith fine uhich maA extend to ten thousand rupees or uith both.

¶77

As seen lrom the record, it discloses that the name of the petitioner is not found in the FIR. Remand report itself reveals that upon instructions of accused No.1, accused No.2 and 3 came down to Hyderabad with narcotic drug cocaine and to sell the same in small quantity to the needy people. The petitioner/accused No. 15 was neither arrested at the site nor was any contraband material seized from him. Moreover, a-11 the witnesses including panch witnesses in this case were oflicial witnesses.

¶78

¶79

CAC, J Crl. P.No.5502 of 2023

¶80

Lcarned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the D€ .itioner/accused No. l5 has completed his Masters in lrinance from renowned Harvard Un iversity and is a young errtrepreneur and working under designation of Vice Presirierlt of Dhakshhinn Agropolis Limited and incharge of Business Development and Marketing Department and that the present case which has been prolonged sirrce its registration severely impaircd the career and person;rl life prospects of the petitioner/ accused No. 15.

¶81

I;urther, the record also reveals that no incriminat irrg material is seized from the I)etitioner / accused No l5 except mobile phone, which has been seized but the same has been handed o'or to the petitioner/ aLccused No. 15 as per the Order, dated 25.O2.'2O22 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.22B of 2022 on the hle of the learned Metropolit:rn Sessions Judge, Nanrpaliy at Hyderabad.

¶82

lt is the specific contention of the prosecution that the pr:titioner/accused No. 15 has made confession

¶83

¶84

G,|C. J Crl.P.No.5502 of2023

¶85

before the Police on 2O.O1.2O22 at about O9:30 hours, admitting his guilt of purchasing the said narcotic substance from accused No.1 and consuming it.

¶86

1 3. The confession made before the Police is not admissible in the eye of law, unless said confession ied to recovery of any incriminating material objects.

¶87

L4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of Honourable Apex Court in Tofan Singh u. State of Tamil No,d.ur wherein it was held that the confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act, 1985 will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the Act, 1985. However, there is no medical record to show that the petitioner/accused No.15 had consumed any narcotic substance.

¶88

1 5. Except the confessional statement of the petitioner / accused No.15, there is no material on record to show that he has purchased the narcotic substance or consumed it. Further, the punishment for the offence

¶89

' lzoz^{t; + scc t}

¶90

¶91

GAC, J Crt. P.No.5502 of2023

¶92

under Secti()n 27 of the Act, 1985 is one year and the alleged FIR rvas registered on 06.01.2022 and till date no charge sheet is filed. Even as per Section a6B (2) (b) of Cr.P.C., the flnal report is not filed within a p{}riod of one year, it is cleemed to be barred by limitation. Tirerefore, the benefit has lo be given to the petitioner/accuserl No.15.

¶93

1 6. [n view of the above discussion arLd f'acts and circumstanr:es ol the case, this Court is of t}-re considered view that i t is a fit case for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No. 15.

¶94

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the prcceedings against the petitioner/accused No.15 in Crimr: lJo.1O of 2022 on the file of the Station House Officer, I)arrjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad. registered for the offenc,. s under Section B (c) read with Section 20 (b) (i0 (c) of thr.. .\ct, 1985 and Section 1a (a) (b) of the Act, 1946, is hereby^(luashed.

¶95

¶96

GAC, J C,l. P.No.5502 of )023

¶97

As a scquel, pending miscellaneous appJications in this matter. .l any, shall stand closed..

¶98

G.ANUPAMA CHAKRA!'ARTHY, J

¶99

Date: l0'h AUC'2{)23 KHRM

Kush Kumar Mishra alias Kush Kumar, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kush Kumar Mishra alias Kush Kumar, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y. Radha Vs The State of Telangana

Devara Muralikrishna, Vs State of Telangana

Mohammed Sarfaraz khan Vs The State of Telangana

M.A. Asghar Hussain Mujahi Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. N.Swetha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Krishna Goud, Vs The State of Telangana