B.Lenin vs The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL OP No. 21156 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 21156 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011475162026}
AND
CRL MP NO. 14077 OF 2026
B.Lenin
S/o Beema Rao,
No.4, MGR Nagar,
Naduveerapattu Village,
Kundrathur Taluk,
Chennai-600 089.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The State Rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
T-11, Somangalam Police Station,
Tambaram Police
Chengalpattu District.
Crime No.293 of 2024.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNS,
praying to call for the records culminating in CC.No.564 of 2025 pending on
the file of the Hon’ble II Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases
under NDPS Act, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Udhayakumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Amarnath,
Additional Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:12 pm )
CRL OP No. 21156 of 2026
Order
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records
pertaining to C.C. No. 564 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned II
Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the NDPS Act,
Chennai, and to quash the same.
2.The case of the prosecution is that, based on secret information, the
respondent police intercepted a Swift car bearing Registration No. TN 14 AC
5502, in which the petitioner and the other accused were travelling, and
allegedly seized seven kilograms of ganja from each of the three accused,
totalling 21 kilograms, which constitutes a commercial quantity. The petitioner
is arrayed as A1 among the three accused in Crime No. 293 of 2024, registered
on 13.11.2024 for the offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Upon completion of
the investigation, the first respondent filed the final report, which was taken
cognizance of by the trial Court in C.C. No. 564 of 2025, and the case is
pending trial. Seeking to quash the said criminal proceedings, the petitioner has
filed the present petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised only one ground
for quashing the entire proceedings. It was contended that the petitioner was
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:12 pm )
CRL OP No. 21156 of 2026
arrested by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponnerikarai Police Station, on
12.11.2024 at about 12.40 p.m. and was thereafter handed over to the
respondent police. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution's
case that the petitioner was arrested on 13.11.2024 at about 1.15 a.m. is false.
On this sole ground, the learned counsel prayed that the petition be allowed.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
5.Upon perusal of the entire records, this Court is of the view that the
ground raised by the petitioner pertains to a disputed question of fact, which
cannot be adjudicated in a petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.
The said ground may be relevant for consideration while deciding the question
of bail and may be examined by the trial Court during the course of trial,
particularly at the stage of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. It is
alleged that the petitioner and the other accused were found in possession of a
total of 21 kilograms of ganja, which constitutes a commercial quantity.
6.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Devendra Prasad Singh v.
State of Bihar & Anr. , reported in (2019) 4 SCC 351 (Crl. A. No. 579 of 2019,
dated 02.04.2019) , while dealing with a petition seeking to quash criminal
proceedings, held that the High Court cannot appreciate the statements of
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:12 pm )
CRL OP No. 21156 of 2026
witnesses and record a finding that inconsistencies in their statements establish
that no prima facie case is made out against the accused. Such an exercise can
be undertaken only by the trial Court while adjudicating the matter on merits or
by the appellate Court while deciding an appeal arising out of the final order.
The Court also observed that inconsistencies in the statements recorded under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, cannot, by themselves,
form the basis for quashing the proceedings at that stage.
7.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Arvind Khanna , reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686 (Crl. A. No.
1572 of 2019, dated 17.10.2019) , held that the High Court cannot record
findings on disputed questions of fact while exercising its jurisdiction to quash
criminal proceedings. The defence raised by the accused has to be tested by the
trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence adduced during the trial.
Therefore, this Court cannot adjudicate upon the disputed facts in the exercise
of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
8.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in another judgment dated
02.12.2019, passed in Crl. A. No. 1817 of 2019, in M. Jayanthi v. K. R.
Meenakshi & Anr. , held that, while considering a petition seeking to quash a
complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into
the validity or reliability of the evidence available on record. The Court is
__________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:12 pm )
CRL OP No. 21156 of 2026
required to examine whether the allegations made in the complaint constitute
the ingredients of the offences alleged, whether the requisite conditions for
taking cognizance have been complied with, and whether the allegations, even
if accepted in their entirety, fail to constitute the alleged offences. The question
of whether the accused would be able to establish the defence in accordance
with law can be considered only at the appropriate stage during the trial.
9.Further, this Court cannot, at this stage, record a finding as to whether
the initiation of the criminal proceedings is malicious. Such a contention, if
raised, has to be considered on the basis of the material available on record and
in accordance with law. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner does not
warrant the quashing of the final report.
10.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash
the proceedings in C.C. No. 564 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned II
Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the NDPS Act,
Chennai. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the available grounds before the
trial Court in accordance with law. The trial Court is directed to complete the
trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:12 pm )
CRL OP No. 21156 of 2026
11.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AH
To
1.The II Additional Special Court for
Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
T-11, Somangalam Police Station,
Tambaram Police
Chengalpattu District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:12 pm )
CRL OP No. 21156 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
AH
CRL OP No. 21156 of 2026
AND
CRL MP NO. 14077 OF 2026
27-10-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:34:12 pm )