Petitioner sought quashing of an NDPS FIR where he was named only in co-accused confessions regarding MDMA procurement. The court held admissibility of such evidence is a trial question and declined to stay or quash proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[33001
1 It
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6209 OF 2025
Between:
Hyder Khan, S/o. Hussain Khan, Aged about 33 years, Occ. Business, Ryo. I - 4- 131 I 1 lbl8, Nadeem Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad.
...Petitioner/Accused No.1 1
AND
...Respondent
...RespondenU Defacto Complainant
.Petitionunder Section 528 of B. N.S.S. praying thatin thecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to QUASH the FIR No 1008 of 2024 on the file of Film Nagar Poltce Station, Hyderabad.
l.A. NO:2OF 2025
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 in FIR No. 1008 of 2024 on the file of Film Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above criminalpetition
This Petition coming on for hearing, uponperusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Vishal ,Advocatefor the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor(TG)on behalf of the Respondents.
The Court made the following: ORDER
,..)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELI NGANA AT HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEM.Ii'AKA
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 62o9 OF 2O2i
o4.12.2025
Between:
Hyder Khan
. Peti ioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor & another
Res r rndents
ORDER:
Heard Sri N. Vishal, learned counsel lrr petitioner
as well as learned Assistant Plrblic Prosecutor.
,/
2
is inadmissible. While the proposition laid down in Tofan Slngh
u. Sta.te of Tamilnadu is that a confessional statement to an NDPS oificer is inerdmissible in evidence. it does not preclude investigation or trial- 'I'he adrcissibility of such evidence is to be adjudicated during the course o[ trial, not at the stage of interlocutorv revision. The contention that no seizure was made frcm petitioner's possession also cannot be a ground for quash u.hen prosccution case is based on a chain of supply and consumplion of narcotics, linking all the accused persons.
\
)
is necessary to curb the menacc oi drug abuse.Gr:-rting stal' of proceedings in such serious offences, merely onrl e Sround of denial clf allegations or absence: li seizurefromt ne accused, vr.ould amount to interferencc- n'ith dueprocess: rdfrustrate the statutory objective. On overail consideration,rhis Court is satished that petitioner has nol made out any cas(for grant of the relief sought. The issues raised by him inr':le disputed lacts and questions of evidentian appreciationrr. r ch can onlv be adjudicated by the trial Court during the trii I ThisCourt therefore, finds no reason to inlerfcre.
Priaate Limited a. S;to:te of Maharashtral, the Sr prerne Court ..lyi.rg on its previous decisions has laid doum he follou'ing factors to be considered while exercising thep rwers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:
".... iv) Thepower ofquashingsl.touldt>eexercisecl s raringlv with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases.(The rarestI rarecases standard in its application for quashing underSection 48ilr.P.C-is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated i I the context of the death penalty, as explainedpreviouslyby thisCourtlr
-(2021) 19 sCC 401
4
v) While exarnining an FIR/cornplaint, quashing of rvhich is sought, the court cannot ernb.lrk upon al cnquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otheru ise ci the alieqalions made in the FlR/complaint;
vi) Criminai proceedings ought not to be scutled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a raritl. than au orclinan, ruie;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the lw-o organs of rhe State operate in lwo specific spheres of activities, The inherent porver of the court is, however, recognisecl lo secitfe the ends oi_iustice or prevent the above process by Section 482 Cr. P.C.
ix) The functions of the judiciar and the police are complementary, not overlapping;
xi Sa!,e in exccptlonal cases ,Jhere non interference would result in miscarriage of juslice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage oi investigation oi offences.
xi) Extraordinary and inherent poiryers of the Court do not confer an arbitrarv lurisdiction on the CoLrrr to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and detaiJs relatirrg to i.he offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go frito the medts of the allegations in the FIR. police must be permitted \ to complete the investigation. It w.ul<i l-.e premature to pronounce the
)
conclusion based on ha4y facts that the complaint/FlR cc rs not desen/e to be investigated or that it amounrs to abuse of proces:r rl law'. During or after investigation, if thc investitaiint officer finds il rt there is no substance in the application made b,- tile compiainant. r r' r investigating ofhcer ma5' file an appropriate report/ summary bcfcr thc learned Magistrate u.hrch may be consider-ed by the leamcr i'laglstraLe in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The porver under Section 482 Cr P.C. is very wide, irL r conferment of u,ide power requires the court to be cautious. [t casLs ir onerous and more diligent dun on the court;
t
\
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks 1ir rcgard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restlarr t imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by thir Court in the cases o[ R.P. Kapur (supral and Bhajan tal {supra) has r' re jurisdiction to quash the FlR/complaint.
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the I I :ged accused, the court when it exercises the po\er under Section 4ii Cr. P. C., only has to consider whether or not thc ailegations in the I I I disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required r consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable off, ce or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/ police t( nvestigate the allegations in the FIR."
6 Similarly, in Skoda Auto Volk:t rugen India Priaate Limited. a. The State of Uttar Prad.es,rr,, thc Hon'ble
' 1zo2r.1s scc zss
6
Apex Court categorically helcl th-at the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Scctiort 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal l'a.-sr:sjn rarest of rare cases u'ith cxtrcme calltron-
.7 In the light of t ir. al)L),e, the Criminal Petition is
d ismissed
8 Consccluer r tl'7, llrr: nriscellaneous Applications, if
any shali stand closed
sor- rlnrnrvasAREDDY A SISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
CTION OFFICER
Sa/PSL
Yk
HIGH COURT
DAf ED:041'1212025
)
ORDER
CRLP.No.6209 of 2025
,i HES TA
iJ
'(
o
LJ ,z
2 I JA!{ 2O2E
.t-
.rl
-i I
..;.rJ...4-
DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETTTION
.\ g'cr-4neo u- ;n{fis
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an FIR implicating the petitioner solely on co-accused confessions under the NDPS Act can be quashed at the threshold.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tofan Singh v. State of TamilnaduExplained¶2
Tofan Singh v. State of Tamilnadu
Criminal Petition No.16327 of 2024Distinguished¶3
Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶5
(2021) 19 SCC 401 · Who else cites this
Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar PradeshRelied on¶6
(2021) SCC 255 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Hyder Khan
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor
A. Ganesh Goud, Sub-Inspector of Police, Film Nagar Police Station
Nagesh Bheemapaka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
