Allowed¶39

Jeedi Pavan, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Feb 2026CRLP/17322/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, 11.02.2026, Criminal Petition No.17322 of 2025 (Jeedi Pavan v. State of Telangana): quashing under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS of NDPS Act case C.C.No.953/2024 (Crime No.91/2024, P.S. Chandurthy, JMFC Vemulawada) invoking Ss.8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A), 27(b) NDPS Act; no contraband seized from Accused No.2; false implication based solely on Accused No.1's confession statement under S.67 NDPS Act held impermissible; Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu relied on; petition allowed, proceedings against petitioner/Accused No.2 quashed as abuse of process; miscellaneous applications closed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C.No.953 of 2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed. ¶39

Jeedi Pavan, Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.953 of 2024 against the petitioner/Accused No.2, for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) and 27(b) of the NDPS Act, ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C.No.953 of 2024 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada, are quashed; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The police did not seize any contraband from the possession of the petitioner; he was falsely implicated in the case as Accused No.2 solely on the basis of the confession statement given by Accused No.1, which is not permissible under law.

¶33

Key takeaways

Placing reliance on the principle in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (voluntary statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, having been retracted, having no evidentiary value), this Court held that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner was a clear abuse of the process of law.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS by Accused No.2 (Jeedi Pavan) seeking quash of C.C.No.953 of 2024 (Crime No.91 of 2024, P.S. Chandurthy) pending before the JMFC, Vemulawada, for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) and 27(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Held: no contraband was seized from the petitioner's possession and he was falsely implicated solely on the confession statement of Accused No.1, which is not permissible under law; relying on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (retracted Section 67 NDPS statements carry no evidentiary value), continuation of proceedings was a clear abuse of process. Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.2 quashed (J. Sreenivas Rao, J.; 11.02.2026).

¶1

IN THE T{IGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE I SREENIVAS RAO

¶5

Criminal Petition No.17322 of 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Jeec{i^{Pavan, S/o. Pedda Gangadhar, aged 23 years,Occ.} R/o. H.No.^2-59/2, Ramannapeta Village, Chandurthy Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District, T.G. ...Petitioner/ Accused No.2. AII'D

¶8

The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at HyderaL'rad, Through P.S Chandurthy, Rajanna Sircilla District T.G.

¶9

...Respondent No. 1. / Cornpr Ia ina rrt.

¶10

Petitiorr uncler Section 482 of Cr.P.C / 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to call for the records relating to C.C No.953 of 2024 (Crime No 91 of 2024 of P.S Chandurthy, Rajanna Sircilla Dist., TG) pencting on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Vemulawada, and quash the same against the petitioner/accused No.2.

¶11

I.A. NO: T OF 2025

¶12

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C / 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the I'lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the Higlr Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.953/2024 (Crirne No.91 of 2024 of P.S. Chandurthy, Rajanna Sircilla Dist., T.G.) on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Vemulawada.

¶13

This I']etition coming on for hearing, upon perusing ths Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bethi Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

¶14

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶16

TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.17322 of 2O2S

Date: 11.02.2026

Between:

Jeedi Pavan

...Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶22

AND

¶23

The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, Through F'.S. Chandurthy, Rajanna Sircilla District, T.G.

¶24

. Respondent No. 1 / complaint

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This; Crirninal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proce edings in C.C.No. 953 of 2024 pending on the file of .^{Judic:.aLMagistrate of First Class, atVernulawada,} wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2, for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 2o(b)(ii)(At and Section 27(bl of the Narcotic Drlgs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act').

¶27

Heard Mr. Bettri Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for

¶28

the petitioner and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent

¶29

No. L /conUf=Lainant.

¶30

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner subrnitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he has been falsely irnplicated in the present case as accused No.2 only basing upon the confession staternent given by accused No. 1. He further subrnitted that the police have not seized any contraband from the possession of the petitioner. Even according to the allegations rnade in the complaint, the offences punishable under sections 8(c) read with section 2o(b)(ii)(A) and Section 27(b) of NDps Act are not attracted against the petitioner and continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is clear abuse of the process of law.

¶32

Learned Additional Public prosecutor submitted that whether the petitioner has cornmitted the offence or not, has to be revealed after full-fledged triar and. therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for quashing of the proceedirrgs.

¶33

5- Having considered the rivaL subrnissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the rnaterial available on record., it reveals that the police have not seized any contraband frorn thelossession of the petitioner and tre has been farsely implicated in the present case as accu.sed. No.2

¶34

¶35

¶36

only basing upon ttre confession^{staternentgiven by} accused No. 1, which is not^{pbrmissible underlaw.}

¶37

In support of hris contention,^{he placed reliance upon} the prin:iple laid down by^{the Hon'1cle Apex Court in Tofan} Singh v'. State of Tamilnadul,^{wherein itwas held that} voluntary staternent recorded under Section^{67 of the NDPS} Act had been retract and so, they had^{no evidentiary value.}

¶38

For: the foregoing reasons and in view of the^principle laid dorvn by the Hon'ble Apex Court^{inTofan Singh} (supral, this Court is of the considered view^that continuation of the proceedings against the^petitioneris clear abuse of the process of the^law.

¶39

In the resttlt, tkre Crirninal Petition is aLlowed and^tLre proceed:ings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in^C.C.No. 953 of 2024 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate^of First Clerss, at Vemulawada, are hereby^quashed.

¶40

Pe::r.ding rniscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

rrsm-rfl-EFT@-

//TRUE^{coPY /} /

SECTION OFFICER

To,