Telangana High Court
Tippagoni Raviteja Goud vs State Of Telangana on 24 March, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2361 of 2026
DATE: 24.03.2026
Between :
Tippaoni Raviteja Goud
....Petitioner/Accused No.1
AND
State of Telangana,
Through SHO Chandanagar PS,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Hyderabad and another
....Respondents
:ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.1373 of 2025 of Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, 'the NDPS Act').
2. The case of the prosecution in brief:
2.1. On 22.11.2025, at about 09.30 hours, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad, received credible information that a person aged about 38 years was transporting 2 Alprazolam in a grey colour Swift Dzire car near Sridevi Talkies, Ameenpur Road, with an intention to supply the same to the needy persons. The said information was recorded in the General Diary and reported the same to the superior officers. Thereafter, he addressed a letter to the Tahasildar, Serilingampally, requesting him to depute two Government officials to act as panchas. After completing the necessary formalities, he along with other police staff proceeded to the spot and intercepted the vehicle and apprehended accused No.2, who is the driver of the car. Upon questioning him, he admitted that the packets of Alprazolam were kept in the dicky and he further confessed that he works as a driver and previously ran a toddy shop in partnership with accused No.4 at Daultabad of Hathnoora Mandal and to prepare adulterated toddy to increase their earnings, both had decided to procure Alprazolam from the petitioner. As per their plan, they contacted the petitioner and placed an order for 3 kg. and on 22.11.2025, he delivered three bags of Alprazolam to him at Ameenpur to him. In the presence of the panchas, the police opened the dicky and found three packets which were wrapped with a brown tape, which contains white crystalline powder suspected to be Alprazolam, and seized with lac and marked them as P1, P2 and P3, weighing 1 Kg, 120 grams and 50 grams respectively. Basing on the said complaint, the present crime was registered for the aforesaid offence.3
3. Heard Mr. R. Anuragh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:
4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crime as an accused solely based upon the confession statement given by accused No.2, which is not permissible under law, and he was not present at the scene of offence. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, no contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner and the police seized the alleged contraband from the possession of accused No.2 and the ingredients of the offence under Section 8(c) read with 22(c) of the NDPS Act are not attracted. In spite of the same, the police implicated the petitioner as a prime accused.
4.2. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and the remand report are taken at face value, they do not disclose any prima facie material about involvement of the petitioner in the alleged criminal activity, except the statement of the co-accused. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.4
4.3. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:
1. State (By NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and another 1, and
2. Karan Talwar v. State of Tamil Nadu 2.
5. Submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor:
5.1. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner had approached this Court and filed anticipatory bail application, vide Crl.P.No.17710 of 2025, and it was dismissed on 08.01.2026. However, the petitioner has not mentioned the above said factum and approached this Court by filing the present criminal petition with unclean hands. He further submitted that the police seized the contraband of 1170 grams of Alprazolam from the possession of accused No.2 red-handedly while transporting it, which is a commercial quantity, after following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act and in his statement, he specifically stated that previously he used to run the toddy shop in partnership with accused No.4 at Daultabad of Hathnoora Mandal and to prepare the adulterated toddy to increase earnings, and as per their plan, they contacted the petitioner and placed an order for 3 kgs. of Alprazolam and on 22.11.2025, the 1 (2022) 12 SCC 633 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3803 5 petitioner delivered three packets of Alprazolam to him at Ameenpur.
The F.I.R. discloses a cognizable offence involving commercial quantity of Alprazolam, which attracts the ingredients of the offence under Section 8(c) read with 22(c) of the NDPS Act. The statements of accused Nos.2 and 4 disclose a criminal conspiracy and a nexus between the petitioner and other accused. The role of the petitioner is under investigation and his connection with procurement, finance, storage or distribution cannot be ruled out at this stage. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage.
Analysis :
6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the police seized contraband, namely 1170 grams of Alprazolam, from the possession of accused No.2 in the presence of the panchas after complying with the mandatory procedure prescribed under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The specific case of the prosecution is that accused No.2 in his statement specifically stated that he placed an order of 3 kgs. of Alprazolam from the petitioner and accordingly on 22.11.2025 he delivered the said contraband to him. On the very same day, the police seized the contraband from the possession of accused No.2. Whether accused No.2 had purchased the contraband from the petitioner, or whether 6 any nexus between the petitioner and accused Nos.2 and 4, are disputed facts and the same cannot be adjudicated and decided in the present criminal petition and the same have to be revealed during the course of investigation. Even according to the prosecution, LWs.1 to 5 were examined and the investigation is under progress.
7. In Karan Talwar supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the only material against an accused is the confessional statement of a co-accused, in the absence of any independent corroborative evidence, no prima facie case is made out, as such statements are inadmissible and insufficient to frame charges, and compelling an accused to face trial in such circumstances would amount to miscarriage of justice. Similarly, in Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in the absence of substantial material apart from statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which are inadmissible as held in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu 3, such statements alone cannot justify arrest or denial of bail, and accordingly upheld the grant of bail.
8. The above said principles are not applicable to the present case on the ground that the police seized the contraband from the possession of accused No.2 after following the due procedure under the NDPS Act and accused No.2 specifically stated in his statement 3 (2021) 4 SCC 1 7 that he had purchased the contraband from the petitioner and on 22.11.2025, he delivered the contraband to him. Therefore, this is not a case of absence of material or one resting merely on inadmissible statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, but a case involving recovery of contraband, and hence, the ratio laid down in the aforementioned decisions is not applicable. Since the complaint discloses prima facie the ingredients of the alleged offences, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings at the threshold.
9. It is relevant to mention that in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court delineated the limited scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution 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. The said principles were reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others 5, wherein it was emphasised that the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences and that Courts 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 5 (2021) 19 SCC 401 8 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.
10. For the foregoing reasons and the precedent decisions, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are confined for the purpose of deciding this case only.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 24.03.2026 mar