1. This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.7 seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. No.190 of 2026 of Lingala Ghanpur Police Station, Jangaon District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) and 27(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case:

On 10.09.2026 respondent No.2/Sub-Inspector of Police, Lingala Ghanpur Police Station, lodged a complaint stating that at about 3-30 hours, while he along with his staff members was on patrolling duty in their limits and at about 3-45 hours, when they reached near the teak garden beside the canal situated at the outskirts of Bandlagudem village, six persons, one black scooter, white car appeared in a suspicious manner and on seeing the police, they tried to fled away from there. Immediately he with the help of his staff members caught them and after following the due procedure, he interrogated them. During the course of investigation, it is revealed that accused No.8 used to purchase dry ganja somewhere and sell it to the ganja smokers on excess price and earning money. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are friends and in the habit of smoking ganja. As no money with them for smoking ganja and their luxuries, they planned to earn money easily by purchasing ganja from the accused No.8 and sell it to the ganja smokers on excess price. According to their plan, they used to purchase dry ganja from the accused No.8, sell it in the surrounding villages of Lingalaghanpur Mandal. The accused Nos.3 to 7 used to purchase ganja from accused Nos.1 and 2 and smoke it now and then. As per the instructions of accused Nos.2 to 7, accused No.1 purchased (10) grams of dry ganja from accused No.8, on 10.09.2026 evening reached to Teak Plantation situated at the outskirts of Bandlagudem village, beside canal, where accused Nos.1 to 6 were waiting for smoking Ganja, at about 15:30 hours while respondent No.2 was proceeding towards Bandlagudem village along with LWs.2 and 3 namely Md.Yakub Pasha and G.Amudeep by Innova police vehicle bearing No. TS 09 PA 5372 under the driving of LW-4 Buchiraju for performing patrolling, on seeing them, accused Nos.1 to 6 were trying to fled away from there. On that respondent No.2 along with LWs.2 to 4 chased them and apprehended them, interrogated them, seized 10 grams of dry ganja, their mobile phones along with SIMs and Maruti Baleno car bearing No. TG 27 T 0913. Based on his complaint, the present crime has been registered for the above said offences.

3. Heard Mr. Neelam Bhargava Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

               4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crime, based upon the confession statement given by accused No.1 only. The confession statement given by the co-accused is not admissible under law. There are no allegations much less specific allegations levelled against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) and 27(b) of the NDPS Act. As on the date of the alleged offence, the petitioner was not present at the scene of offence, and he is at a different place and no contraband was seized from his possession. There is no incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the present crime. The police without conducting any preliminary enquiry, without issuing notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and without following the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273), is proceeding with the investigation against the petitioner and the same is contrary to law.

               4.2 He further submitted that even according to the allegations levelled in the complaint, the alleged quantity of the contraband is 10 grams of dry ganja, which is a small quantity, especially the same was seized from the possession of the other accused. The only allegation levelled in the complaint is that accused No.1 made a confession statement alleging that the petitioner was consuming ganja. The said allegation does not attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) and 27(b) of the NDPS Act. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

               4.3. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following orders /judgments;

               i) C.Adithya Narayana Reddy v. The State of Telangana (order dated 10.02.2025 passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.1794 of 2025);

               ii) P.Nikhil Reddy and two others v. The State of Telangana (order dated 25.02.2025 passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.2753 of 2025);

               iii) Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam v. State of Bihar (1964 AIR 1184); and

               iv) Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 INSC 96).

5. Submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor:

               5.1 Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the police seized the contraband after following the due procedure under the NDPS Act by conducting panchanama. Accused Nos.1 to 6 in their statements specifically stated the role of the petitioner that they are in the habit of consuming ganja by purchasing the same from one M.Purushotham/accused No.8, who is a resident of Bandlagudem Village and there is telephonic conversation between the petitioner and other accused. Whether there is any conspiracy between the petitioner and other accused or any other incriminating material is there to connect the petitioner with the crime, the same will be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is under progress. At this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.

Analysis:

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.7 in the present crime registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) and 27(b) of the NDPS Act. The specific case of the prosecution is that the police seized 10 grams of dry ganja from the possession of accused Nos.1 to 6 and they had specifically stated in their statements that they are purchasing the ganja from accused No.8 and consuming the same. They specifically mentioned the name of the petitioner that he is also purchasing the ganja and consuming along with them. There is a telephonic conversation between the petitioner and other accused. Whether the petitioner was implicated as accused No.7 solely basing upon the confession statement given by the co-accused or whether there is any incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the present crime, the same will be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is under progress.

7. Insofar as the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged contraband seized from the other accused is only a small quantity and the petitioner was implicated as accused No.7 solely basing upon the confession statement given by the other accused and the same is not permissible under law is concerned, it is already stated supra, whether there is any incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the present crime and whether the petitioner was implicated as accused No.7 solely basing upon the confession statement given by the other accused, the same will be revealed during the course of investigation. Even according to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the investigation is under progress. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing the proceedings on the ground that the contraband seized in the present crime is a small quantity.

8. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on the ground that in the above case, the appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge for the offences of dacoity and murder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and the said judgment was confirmed by the concerned High Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants had approached the Hon’ble Apex Court.

9. The other judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi (supra), also not applicable to the facts of the present case on the ground that in the above said judgment, the appellant/accused was convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 8 r/w 15 of the NDPS Act. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the appellant/accused approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which confirmed the said conviction. Aggrieved by the above said judgment, the appellant/accused had approached the Hon’ble Apex Court.

10. The other orders passed by this Court in C.Adithya Narayana Reddy (supra) and P.Nikhil Reddy (supra) are also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the petitioner/s therein had approached this Court and filed criminal petitions seeking to quash the final reports/charge sheets, whereas, the present case is at crime stage only and the investigation is under progress.

11. It is relevant to mention that in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated the limited scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, holding that such power may be exercised only in exceptional cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence, are inherently improbable, legally barred, or manifestly mala fide, while cautioning that the categories so enumerated are illustrative and the power must be exercised sparingly.

12. It is also relevant to mention that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others ((2021) 19 SCC 401), wherein it was emphasized that the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences and that Courts should not interdict investigation at the threshold unless no cognizable offence is disclosed on a plain reading of the FIR; the FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia of all facts, and criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at their nascent stage. It was further held that the power to quash proceedings should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases, where the allegations do not disclose any offence or are manifestly attended with mala fide or are an abuse of the process of law.

13. For the foregoing reasons and the precedent decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered view that the present case does not fall under the category of rarest of rare case to exercise the powers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this stage.

14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.