1. This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.840 of 2025 on the file of Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. Heard Sri E.Venkata Siddhartha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, no contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner. However, based on the medical test, the petitioner was implicated as an accused on the ground that the investigation revealed that the petitioner had consumed the contraband, namely Ganja. He further submits that, on the request made by the petitioner, he was referred to the Government Hospital for Mental Care, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner underwent treatment and attended counselling sessions from 09.09.2025 to 17.09.2025. Thereafter, the concerned authorities conducted a medical test, and in the said test, the result was found to be negative. The Superintendent of the said hospital issued a medical certificate to that effect on 19.09.2025.

4. Learned counsel further submits that, as per the provisions of Section 64-A of the NDPS Act, the continuation of the proceedings for the offence under Section 27 of the Act against the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the principle laid down by this Court in Anish Kumar Dundoo v. State of Telangana. (2021 SCC OnLine TS 2195) 6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Investigating Officer has already issued notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’). Hence, the petitioner is entitled to submit his reply to the said notice, and he is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage. Whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation, and therefore, the petitioner cannot seek quashing of the proceedings.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that no contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner. However, the petitioner was made accused No.2 in the present case on the ground that he had consumed Ganja, based on the test conducted by the concerned authorities. Subsequently, on the request made by the petitioner, he was referred for de-addiction treatment. The record further reveals that the petitioner underwent medical treatment from 09.09.2025 to 17.09.2025 and also attended counselling sessions. After completion of the said sessions, the petitioner was again subjected to a medical examination, and the authorities issued a medical certificate stating that the test result was negative.

8. It is very much relevant to mention the provisions of Section 64-A of the NDPS Act which reads as under:-

               “64A. Immunity from prosecution to addicts volunteering for treatment.-- Any addict, who is charged with an offence punishable under section 27 or with offences involving small quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, who voluntarily seeks to undergo medical treatment for de-addiction from a hospital or an institution maintained or recognised by the Government or a local authority and undergoes such treatment shall not be liable to prosecution under section 27 or under any other section for offences involving small quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances:

               Provided that the said immunity from prosecution may be withdrawn if the addict does not undergo the complete treatment for de-addiction.”

9. In Anish Kumar Dundoo supra, this court applied Section 64-A of the NDPS Act, which grants immunity from prosecution for offences involving small quantity when the accused voluntarily undergoes de-addiction treatment. The petitioner submitted a certificate from Phoenix Rehab Services showing completion of counselling sessions, negative drug tests, absence of withdrawal symptoms, and participation in psycho-educational and relapse-prevention programmes. Accepting this rehabilitation as sufficient compliance with Section 64-A and following the approach in Sanjiv Bhatnagar v. State (Criminal Revision Case No. 1278 of 2015, order dated 27.01.2016 (Madras High court)), the Court extended statutory immunity and quashed the criminal proceedings.

10. In the present case the accused No. 2 was implicated only because his initial medical test was positive. He voluntarily sought referral to a Government hospital for counselling and treatment, and after completing this process, the authorities conducted a fresh test, which returned negative. Since the allegation concerns only consumption and the accused has voluntarily undergone rehabilitation resulting in a clean report, the principle laid down in Sanjiv Bhatnagar supra and Anish Kumar Dundoo supra applies. He therefore meets the requirements of Section 64-A NDPS Act and is entitled to immunity from prosecution.

11. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the principle laid down in the above judgments, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law.

12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in FIR No.840 of 2025 on the file of the Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.