Allowed

Cherlapally Vidya Sagar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Feb 2025CRLP/2563/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two accused in a rave-party NDPS case sought quashing of proceedings, arguing no specific role or prohibited substance was attributed to them. The High Court held mere presence at the scene cannot attract the alleged offences, noted the bar on cognizance of Section 188 IPC complaints, and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioners-accused Nos. 50 and 63 in S.C.NDPS.No.5 of 2023 quashed; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Cherlapally Vidya Sagar Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13257l

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANAAT HYDER,ABAD} FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY^{FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICEJUWADISRIDEVI} CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2563^{OF 202s}

¶4

Between:

¶5

1 Cherlapally Vidya^{Sagar,S/o. Yakaiah Age. 22, Occ. Student, R/o' near Sai} ram Degree Collage Torrur^{(v), MahabubabadDist.}

¶6

2 Pasunuii Vikas, S7o. Satyanarayana^{Age. 23 Years, Occ. Student,Rlo' 1-21,} Rashavndra colonv' shivanaravana"ii['if'llo"ER/AccusED

¶7

No.so &63

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Teldngana, Rep.^{by its Public Prosecutor,High Court, Hyderabad} rhrough the Station House^{officer, NaravanpurP.S.,Yadadri tT[s;t.iB5[5L*}

¶10

Petition under section^{528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances} stated in the^{Memorandumof Groundsof criminalPetition,the High courtmay} be pleased to^{quash the chargesheet in sc NDPSNo. 5/2023, on the file of the} 1st Additional bistrict^{and SelsionsCourt,at Bhongir, Yadadri-Bhongir District} against the Petitioners/Accused^{No.44and 53 herein;}

¶11

.A. NO: 2 OF 2025

¶12

Petition under section^{528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,the Highcourtmay} be pleased to stay all^{furtherproceedings including attendance of the Petitioner} in bC ruOpS No. StZOZg,^{on the file of the Hon'ble Additional Districtand} Sessions Court, at^{Bhongir, Yadadri-Bhongir District against the} Petitioner/Accused No.^{50 and 63 herein;}

¶13

This Petition coming^{on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum} -of Grounds of criminal^{Petition and upon hearingthe arguments of sri DoNKURI} MALLIKARJUN, Advocate^{for the Petitioners and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla,} Addl. Public Prosecutor^{on behalf of the Respondent;}

¶14

The Court made the following^ORDER:

¶15

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI

¶17

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2563 ot 2025

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioners, who are accused Nos.50 and 63 in S.C.NDPS.No.5 o'f 2023 on the file of the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge at Bhongiri, Yadadri-Bhongiri District, registered for the offences under Sections 8(c),20(b),25,27(a), 29,37 of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 34 read with 15 of the Telangana State Excise Act, Section 5'1 (b) of the Disaster [4anagement Act, 2005 and Section 3(1) of the Epidemic Decease Act, 1897 and Sections 188,294 of the lndian Penal Code, are seeking to quash the proceedings against them

¶21

Heard Sri Donkuri tMallikarjun, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record

¶22

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. lt was found that the members were inhaling ganja, consuming alcoholic drinks, food and dancing to the DJ sound. The

¶23

\ I

¶24

¶25

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;21 entry tickets of the rave party were seized from accused ruo.a; (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 also drafted Thereafter, the Police concluded investigation and found that all the accused Nos.1 to 105 who gathered at the premises are liable under various offences punishable under penal provisions, Disaster Management Act and the Epidemic Disease Act

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and has nothing to do with the rave party 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. Further, it is submitted that the proceedings against the accused Nos.12, 20, 46 and 66 were quashed by this Court vide Orders dated 18.11.2024 passed in CRL.P.No.13906 of 2024 and the proceedings against the accused No.38 were quashed by this Court vide Orders dated 31.03.2023^passed in CRL.P.No.3158 of 2023 The petitioners-accused Nos.50 and 63 were also standing on the

¶27

\ )

¶28

¶29

same footing as that of the petitioners in CRL.p.Nos.13906 of ZO24 and 3158 of2023.

¶30

On the other hand, learned Additional Public prosecutor would submit that accused Nos.1 to^'l 05 have violated the directions of the Government in pandemic period, for which reason, they have to be prosecuted for the above offences and it is for the learned trial Court to decide the complicity of the accused.

¶31

¶32

As seen from the incident, the petitioners who were arrayed as accused Nos.50 and 63 were found in the premises of farm house where the alleged rave party was going on. lt is not the case that these petitioners were subjected to any tests to confirm that they were either inhaling ganja or they are under the influence of alcohol. Unless, the Police specify as to the role played by the petitioners that they were found with any substance that was prohibited, the petitioners cannot be made punishable under any of the penal provisions. Mere presence of the petitioners at the scene would not attract any of the offences alleged. Under Section 195(a)(1) of the Code of Criminal procedure, the Court is infact prohibited from taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 188 of lPC, unless it is filed by the competent public Servant. Since no specific role is attributed to the petitioners and assuming that the petitioners were found at the scene would not

-l

entail the^{prosecutionof the petitionersfor the offences alleged'} Hence, the^{proceedingsagainst the petitioners are liable to be} quashed.

¶37

Accordingly,^{the Criminal Petition is allowed and the} proceedings against^{the petitioners-accused Nos 50 and 63 in} S.C.NDPS.No^{.5 of 2023 on the file of the learnedI AdditionalDistrict} & Sessions^{Judgeat Bhongiri, Yadadri-BhongiriDistrict'are hereby} quashed.

¶38

As a sequel,^{miscellaneous petitionspending' if any' shall}

¶39

stand closed

¶40

sd/- P^{PADMANABHAREDDY} ASS TANT^REGISTRAR

¶41

//TRUE^COPY//

¶42

SECTION^OFFICER

¶43

To dri-B hongir^District 1. The lAddl^{District & Sessions Judge, Bhongir' Ya} 2. The lAddl.^{Sessions Judge, Nalgonda} hongir^District 2 The Station^House Officer, NarayanaP^{ur P.S., Yadadri-B} ON KURI^{MALLIKARJ UN Advocate [OPUC]}

¶44

45 One Two CC CCs to^{to SRI- PUBLD} tcPROSECUTOR,^{High Court at HYderabad (ouT)} 6 Two CD CoPies

¶45

VSM/PRw

¶46

HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025

¶47

)

¶48

1 11: STAT6
t
) ,
lJ,) 2 0 r{A\ 20[ .bo
{-
t
t
DSs n.,r C

¶49

ORDER

¶50

CRLP.No.2563 ot 2025

¶51

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶52

q cdpqeA
Y"
i(5[*u

Cherlapally Vidya Sagar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cherlapally Vidya Sagar 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

Sri. Borra Yogesh Vs The State of Telangana

Nagole Digvijay Samrat, Vs The State of Telangana

Y. Vinay Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Kumari Nikitha alias Eslavath Nikitha Vs The State of Telangana

B. Raji Reddy Vs Prof. Malla Reddy Perati

Babu Rao Jupally Vs The State of Telangana