1 2025:CGHC:12521-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 147 of 2025 1 - Rizwan Khan S/o Late Shri Shubhan Khan Aged About 44 Years R/o Road 23, Quarter No. 17/a, Sector-7, Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs (Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Of Chhattisgarh Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Station House Officer Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shrestha Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanghrash Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17. 03.2025 1. Heard, Mr. Shrestha Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel for the advocate and Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate for the State/ Respondents. 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under article 226 of Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR of Crime No. 372 of 2024 registered at Police Station- Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short “NDPS Act”) and subsequent filing of charge-sheet. He prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 Call for entire records pertaining to the NDPS case 62/2024 registered with crime number 372/2024 & Charge sheet filed with the Final report number 195/2024. 10.2 Issue appropriate writ(s) and/or direction(s) to quash/set-aside the entire Charge sheet filed on 03/11/2024 with Final Report number 195/2024 and registered FIR with crime number 372/2024 and also stay the criminal proceedings pertaining to the NDPS case 62/2024 against the petitioner. 10.3 Issue appropriate writ(s) and/or direction(s) to initiate proceedings and independent enquiry in accordance with law against all the responsible officials who falsely cooked up and implicated the petitioner in false and frivolous case. 10.4 Issue appropriate writ(s) and/or direction(s) to pay compensation for illegal custody and detention and for the damages and hardship caused to the petitioner and his family members. 10.5 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to any other order/orders, direction/directions in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner against the respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the offence of Crime No. 372/2024 registered on 11/09/2024 at Police Station- Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg for the offence under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 11.09.2024 on being secret information, the Police of Police Station- Bhilai Nagar intercepted the petitioner near Chhattisgarh Library, Sector-7, Bhilai and on being search, he was found in possession of 4.840 Kg. Ganja which was kept in green silver plastic bag and after due process of search and seizure, an investigation, the 3 said contraband Ganja which seized from him and the FIR has been registered against him. After completion of the process of investigation, charge-sheet is filed before the learned trial Court on 03.11.2024 for the offence under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act which was registered as Special Case (NDPS) No. 62/2024 which is pending before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Durg. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was illegally detained by the Police two days prior to the date of alleged incident and he was kept under illegal detention by the Police and pressurizes him to confess his guilt and when he denied the same, he has been implicated in the present case. No any contraband/ Ganja has been in fact seized from the petitioner and the entire case of prosecution is concocted only to implicate the petitioner for the offence in question. He would rely upon a CCTV footage and submitted that from the CCTV footage, it clearly reflects that the petitioner was illegally detained by the Police on 09/09/2024 i.e. two days prior to the date of the present incident but the same has not been considered by the Police while filing the charge-sheet against him. The said CCTV footage has been certified by the subject expert Purshottam Deshlahre who is the proprietor of Prince Mobile Hardware & Software Solutions and even a and and grant a certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He would further submit that there are material discrepancies in the evidence available in the chare-sheet which is self contradictory which shows that the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner is concocted and the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the offence. Therefore, by exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction, the interference of this Court is required and the FIR as well as charge-sheet against the petitioner may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/ Respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted 4 that the petitioner was found in possession of 4.840 Kg of Ganja and after drawing the requisite process of search and seizure proceeding, the said Ganja was seized from the petitioner, it is the defence of the petitioner that he has not committed any offence and no Ganja has been seized from him on the alleged date and time as projected by the prosecution whereas all the documents annexed with the charge-sheet, prima facie source that the petitioner is involved in the alleged commission of offence. The said pen drive is not the part of the charge-sheet, therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration at this stage and the petitioner may cross-examined the witnesses on his defence. The nature of allegation against the petitioner requires evidence which can only be done after full fledged trial for which the charge-sheet has been filed by the prosecution against him. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of the FIR as well as material annexed with the charge-sheet, it prima facie reflects that on 11.09.2024, the Police of Police Station Bhilai Nagar received secret information and after due process of investigation they seized 4.840 Kg of contraband Ganja from possession of the petitioner and the necessary Panchanamas were prepared in presence of the witnesses. Statement of the witnesses were also recorded. The said contraband were sent for its chemical examination to FSL, inventory has also been prepared by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg, therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that there is no evidence against the petitioner in the charge-sheet. 8. Considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner, the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence in question for the prosecution of the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. The petitioner is at liberty to lead the evidence 5 regarding his innocence before the learned trial Court which shall be taken into consideration by the learned trial Court during the course of trial. 9. Consequently, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed. 10. The Registry is directed to return back the pen drive annexed with the petition to the learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining the receipt of the same. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.03.26 17:05:36 +0530