AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 391 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
The petitioner seeks quashing of Case Crime No.250 of 2023, under Sections 8/21/29/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, with related reliefs.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
According to the FIR, on 10.11.2023, suspecting the movements of co-accused Faeem Khan, he was apprehended, and from his possession, 608 grams smack was recovered. He then revealed that he had brought the smack from the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been made accused merely based on the statement of the co-accused Faeem Khan. He would also submit that on 22.09.2023, smack was recovered from some other persons. They also named the petitioner as the person from whom they had brought smack,
It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case, the FIR discloses commission of offence, generally, no interference is warranted unless there are compelling circumstances to do so.
It is true that recovery has not been made from the petitioner. It is also equally true that on 10.11.2023, 608 grams smack was allegedly recovered from the co-accused, who named the petitioner as the person from whom he had brought the smack.
The police would investigate this further. It is the case of the petitioner herself that earlier also, on 22.09.2023, smack was recovered from some other persons, who also named the petitioner as the person from whom they had brought the smack. At this moment, this Court is not concerned as to what had happened in other cases, but fact remains, in the instant case, smack in large quantity was recovered from the co-accused, who named the petitioner as the person from whom he brought the smack. The role of the petitioner would find scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the case may be. The call detail records, any financial transaction, online or otherwise or any other link, definitely the police will investigate it. At this stage, there is no reason to interfere in this investigation. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference, at this stage. The petition deserves to be dismissed, at the stage of admission itself.
The petition is dismissed in limine.