- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3678 CRL.P No. 11619 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11619 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MISS ZUHA FATHIMA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, D/O MR JAKEER AHMED, R/AT FLAT NO.303, SUN VIEW APARTMENT, NEAR NANTHOOR, MALLIKATTE, KADRI, MANGALORE-575001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. TALHA ISMAIL BENGRE.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY URWA POLICE STATION, DAKSHINA KANNADA, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV., ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.3) HEREIN CRIME NO.053/2023, URVA POLICE STATION (SPL.C.NO.140/2023) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 8(c), Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3678 CRL.P No. 11619 of 2024 21(b), 27(b) OF NDPS ACT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANGALORE DK; I.A.NO.1/2024 FOR STAY.I.A.NO.1/2024 FILED BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO STAY THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.3) HEREIN CRIME NO.053/2023, URVA POLICE STATION (SPL.C.NO.140/2023) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 8(c), 21(b), 27(b) OF NDPS ACT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANGALORE DK, FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner - accused No.3 seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings in Crime No.53/2023 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, D.K., for the offences punishable under Section 8(c), 21(b) and 27(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3678 CRL.P No. 11619 of 2024 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the instant case, the respondent registered a FIR in Crime No.53/2023 dated 19.06.2023 against accused No.1 - P.S.Abdul Aziz on the ground that during the raid, said accused No.1 - P.S.Abdul Aziz was found in custody and was in possession of 3.470 grams of methamphetamine drug, thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(b) and 27(b) of NDPS Act. In this context, a perusal of the complaint will indicate that except the alleged statement of co-accused No.1 - P.S.Abdul Aziz, the petitioner was neither present at the spot nor was any portion of the substance found in the custody of his possession and consequently, in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Toofan Singh v. State of TamilNadu reported in (2013) 16 SCC 31, which has been followed by this Court in the case of Aadil Abdul Jaleel M. v. The State of Karnataka, [in Criminal Petition No.7081/2023 decided on 12.10.2023), I am of the view that the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed. In fact, in the case - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3678 CRL.P No. 11619 of 2024 of Aadil Abdul Jaleel M. v. The State of Karnataka, supra, arising out of the proceedings under the NDPS Act, this Court has held as under: "Petitioner-accused No.5 is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A), 21(c), 22(c) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS"). 2. The case of the prosecution is that, upon receiving credible information, a raid was conducted and upon search, the parcel lying in the Post Office was seized, and it was uncovered that the parcel had contained psychotropic substance. The Parcel containing the psychotropic substance was addressed to the accused Nos.1 and 2. 3. On apprehending the said accused, and on interrogation, they have allegedly stated that petitioner-accused No.5 was also residing with them at the earlier point of time. On the basis of the confession statement of the accused Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner-accused No.5 was implicated for the commission of the aforesaid offences. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner- accused No.5 submits that, except the confession statement of the co-accused, there is no corroborative material to substantiate that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3678 CRL.P No. 11619 of 2024 petitioner-accused No.5 was either residing at the address given in the parcel containing psychotropic substance or placed any an order online along with the other accused for purchasing the psychotropic substance. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh -vs- State of TamilNadu reported in (2013) 16 SCC 31. 5. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State would submit that, the charge sheet material clearly discloses that the petitioner along with other accused purchased the psychotropic substance through online and the veracity of the allegation against the petitioner can be considered at the time of the trial, and at this stage, the same cannot be gone into. 6. Considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Admittedly, the parcel containing the psychotropic substance was addressed to accused No.1 and 2, and the accused No.1 and 2 on interrogation have allegedly stated that accused No.5 was also residing at the address mentioned in the parcel at the earlier point of time. Except the confession statement of the co-accused, there is no corroborative material to substantiate that the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3678 CRL.P No. 11619 of 2024 petitioner along with other accused purchased the psychotropical substance through online nor there is any material to substantiate as on the date of the commission of the offence the petitioner was residing with the accused No.1 and 2. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh -vs- State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2013) 16 SCC 31, has held that, any confessional statement made to officers empowered under Section 53 cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused, except to the extent found "relevant" under Section 53A, and when corroborated in accordance with law, quashed the proceeding against the said accused. 9. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative material to substantiate the allegation against the Petitioner, the continuation of the criminal proceedings only on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused will be an abuse of process of law. 10. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The criminal petition is allowed ii) The impugned proceedings in Spl.Case No.101/2022 on the file of the Principal - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3678 CRL.P No. 11619 of 2024 District and Sessions Judge, at Udupi, insofar it relates to the accused No.5 stands quashed. iii) The learned Sessions Judge to proceed against other accused in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in the order. The observation, if any made, is only for the purpose of the present petition. I.A. No.1/2023 does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of." 4. In the instant case, the material on record clearly indicates that in the absence of any corroborative material to substantiate the allegation made against the petitioner from whom the incriminating substance was neither recovered nor was the petitioner present at the spot when the raid was conducted, the proceedings qua accused No.3 based solely on the alleged confession statement of accused No.1 clearly amounts to abuse of process of law warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3678 CRL.P No. 11619 of 2024 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.53/2023 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, D.K. for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(b) and 27 (b) of NDPS Act are hereby quashed qua the petitioner - accused No.1. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SA ct:sr