Praveen Kumar vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Rajapalayam North

Court
Madras High Court

CRL OP(MD) No. 20324 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 13.10.2026
Pronounced on : 05.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CRL OP(MD) No. 20324 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011295492026}
and
CRL MP(MD) No. 19334 of 2026
Praveen Kumar
..Petitioner(s)/A2
Vs
1. State Of Tamilnadu,
Rep by the Inspector Of Police,
Rajapalayam North Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
Crime No. 157/2025.
2. Mariammal.P
Sub Inspector of Police,
Rajapalayam North police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.
157/2025 dt. 13.03.2025 on the file of the Rajapalayam North Police
Station, Virudhunagar District and quash the same insofar as the
petitioner/A2 Praveen Kumar is concerned.
For Petitioner(s) :M/s RAJAGURU.G.
For Respondent(s) : M/s.P.Samuel Gunasingh
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
__________
Page  1  of  15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:55:02 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 20324 of 2026
ORDER
The petitioner, arrayed as A2 in Crime No.157 of 2025 on the file
of the first respondent police, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking to quash the First
Information Report insofar as it relates to him. The petitioner stands
accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”) and Section 77 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter
referred to as “the JJ Act”).
Facutal Matrix:-
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution, as
unfolded in the FIR, is that on 13.03.2025 at about 09.30 a.m., the second
respondent, the Sub-Inspector of Police, received secret information that
ganja was being sold in the vicinity of the Government Maternity
Hospital, Rajapalayam. After apprising the Inspector of Police and
obtaining necessary instructions, she proceeded to the spot along with the
Head Constable, a Grade-I Police Constable, weighing scales and other
equipment. At about 10.30 a.m., the police party noticed two persons
standing at the spot, one of whom was handing over a packet to an
__________
Page  2  of  15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:55:02 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 20324 of 2026
unidentified student clad in a school uniform. On sighting the police
party, the student ran away. The two persons, who also attempted to flee,
were secured by the police party and were identified as A1 and A2.
3. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused were
informed that they were suspected of being in possession of contraband
and were asked whether they wished to be searched in the presence of a
Gazetted Officer or the nearest Judicial Magistrate. The accused are
stated to have declined the said option and consented to be searched by
the police party. A search consent letter was accordingly prepared and
was signed by both the accused. Upon personal search, A1 produced six
small polythene packets and the petitioner/A2 produced five small
polythene packets from their respective pant pockets. The contents were
found to be ganja, weighing 70 grams in all. Of this, 20 grams was drawn
as sample and the remaining 50 grams was packed separately, and both
were duly sealed. The accused are alleged to have stated that they had
purchased the ganja from an unidentified person at Sivagiri and were
selling the same in and around Rajapalayam for profit, within 100 metres
of the Government Sevugapandi School. The seizure mahazar records
that no independent witness came forward to attest the same and that it
__________
Page  3  of  15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:55:02 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 20324 of 2026
was, therefore, signed by members of the police party. The petitioner was
arrested on 13.03.2025 and remanded to judicial custody.

The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side are
as follows:-
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend
that the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety, do not make out the ingredients of the offence
under Section 77 of the JJ Act as against the petitioner. It is submitted
that the so-called school student is an unidentified person who fled from
the spot, and there is no material whatsoever to show that he was a
“child”. The specific overt act of handing over the packet is attributed
only to the co-accused, A1, and not to the petitioner. According to the
learned Counsel, the petitioner cannot be fastened with liability merely on
account of his presence along with A1, and the alleged recovery of five
packets from him does not, by itself, establish that he had any role in
supplying a narcotic substance to a child.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that,
though the petitioner and the co-accused were informed of their right to
be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, the police
__________
Page  4  of  15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:55:02 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 20324 of 2026
proceeded to search them on the strength of a purported consent. It is
pointed out that the consent letter is in a printed proforma and that the
signatures of both the accused were obtained on a single consent form.
The learned Counsel would urge that the requirement under Section 50 of
the NDPS Act is mandatory in nature and cannot be substituted by a joint
consent. Consequently, the search and the resultant recovery stand
vitiated.

6. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Ranjan Kumar Chadha Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1262 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand and
another, (2014) 5 SCC 345 , the decision of the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh at Shimla in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Soni and another,
2025 HHC 33178 , and the judgment of this Court in Raja Anand and
another Vs. State, Crl.A.No.755 of 2023, dated 12.03.2026 . It is his
submission that a joint consent form obtained from both the accused is
patently illegal and does not satisfy the mandatory requirement of Section
50 of the NDPS Act.

__________
Page  5  of  15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:55:02 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 20324 of 2026
7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the first respondent would submit that the petitioner was apprehended
at the spot along with A1, immediately after A1 had handed over a packet
to the school student. It is submitted that five small packets were
recovered from the petitioner’s own pant pocket. Both the accused were
apprised of their right under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act and, having
declined to be produced before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate,
executed the consent form permitting the police party to search them.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further contend
that the allegations disclose a concerted act on the part of the accused in
selling ganja to school children in the vicinity of a school, and that the
question as to whether the recipient was a child is a matter for
investigation and trial. It is lastly contended that, even assuming that
there was some irregularity in the search and seizure, the same cannot
constitute a ground to quash the FIR at the threshold. Reliance was placed
upon the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 .
__________
Page  6  of  15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:55:02 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 20324 of 2026
Discussion: -
9. Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record. The points that arise for consideration in
this petition are:-
a) Whether the alleged non-compliance with Section 50(1) of the
NDPS Act in the personal search of the petitioner would constitute a
ground for quashing the FIR; and
b) Whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at their face value,
disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner,
including the offence under Section 77 of the JJ Act.

10. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is
that the consent form is not in conformity with Section 50(1) of the
NDPS Act and runs contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand and another,
(2014) 5 SCC 345 , wherein the practice of obtaining a joint consent was
deprecated as being violative of Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act.

__________
Page  7  of  15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:55:02 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 20324 of 2026
11. This Court has carefully perused the consent form. A reading of
the same reveals that the accused were offered the option of being taken
either before a Judicial Magistrate or before a Gazetted Officer, and were
also asked whether they had any objection to being searched by the police
party. Both the accused have signed the single consent form and recorded
their consent. On a close reading of the facts in Parmanand (supra), it is
seen that, of the two accused therein, one had signed on behalf of the
other; in other words, consent was given by only one of them. In the case
on hand, however, both the accused have affixed their respective
signatures. Hence, the said decision is clearly distinguishable on facts and
does not come to the aid of the petitioner.

12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the
decision in Ranjan Kumar Chadha Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1262 . A reading of paragraph 57 of the said
judgment shows that the contraband therein was recovered from a bag
carried by the accused, whereas in the present case, the recovery is from
the pant pocket of the petitioner, which would constitute a personal
search. In paragraph 66(v) of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that where multiple persons are to be searched, each of
them must be individually informed of his right and must exercise or
__________
Page  8  of  15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:55:02 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 20324 of 2026
waive the same in his own capacity, and that any joint or common
communication of the said right would be violative of Section 50 of the
NDPS Act.

13. In the case on hand, each of the accused has independently
signed the consent form, albeit a single form. Whether such a procedure
amounts to substantial compliance with Section 50(1), or whether it
suffers from an infirmity of the nature contemplated in Ranjan Kumar
Chadha (supra), is essentially a question of fact. Such an infirmity, if
any, would at best affect the evidentiary value of the recovery and would
not vitiate the trial itself. The question, therefore, is one that has to be
adjudicated only during the course of trial, on the basis of the evidence
that may be adduced.

14. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State
of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 , has, in sub-paragraphs
(3) and (5) of paragraph 57, held as follows:-
“ (3) That a search made by an empowered officer, on
prior information, without informing the person of his
right that if he so requires, he shall be taken before a
gazetted officer or a Magistrate for search and in case
he so opts, failure to conduct his search before a
gazetted officer or a Magistrate, may not vitiate the trial
but would render the recovery of the illicit article
__________
Page  9  of  15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:55:02 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 20324 of 2026
suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence of an
accused, where the conviction has been recorded only
on the basis of the possession of the illicit article,
recovered from his person, during a search conducted in
violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act.
(5) That whether or not the safeguards provided in
Section 50 have been duly observed would have to be
determined by the court on the basis of the evidence led
at the trial. Finding on that issue, one way or the other,
would be relevant for recording an order of conviction
or acquittal. Without giving an opportunity to the
prosecution to establish, at the trial, that the provisions
of Section 50 and, particularly, the safeguards provided
therein were duly complied with, it would not be
permissible to cut short a criminal trial.”
15. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution
Bench cited supra, it is manifest that even assuming that there was any
defect in obtaining the consent of the accused at the time of the personal
search, the same is a matter to be determined only at the trial, on the basis
of the evidence let in. It would, therefore, not be permissible for this
Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, to quash the FIR and
thereby interdict the investigation at its inception. Accordingly, point (a)
is answered against the petitioner.

16. Insofar as the offences under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) of the
NDPS Act are concerned, the FIR specifically alleges that five packets of
__________
Page  10  of  15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:55:02 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 20324 of 2026
ganja were recovered from the pant pocket of the petitioner. The
petitioner is, therefore, not alleged to have been a mere bystander at the
spot; he is alleged to have been in conscious possession of contraband
packed in small packets for the purpose of sale. The contention that the
total quantity is only about 70 grams has a bearing only on the quantum
of punishment and not on whether an offence is made out. Likewise, the
submission that the statements allegedly made by the accused before the
police do not constitute substantive evidence is not a ground that can be
entertained at this stage, since the FIR does not rest solely on those
statements. These are all matters to be considered by the trial Court.

17. As regards the offence under Section 77 of the JJ Act, the said
provision renders punishable not only the act of giving an intoxicating
liquor, narcotic drug or psychotropic substance to a child, but also the act
of causing the same to be given. The FIR alleges that the petitioner and
A1 were standing together at the spot, that A1 handed over a packet to a
student in school uniform in the presence of the petitioner, that both of
them attempted to flee on seeing the police, and that both were found in
possession of similar small packets of ganja. Whether the petitioner
shared a common intention with A1, or abetted or caused the supply of
the substance, is a question of fact. Equally, whether the student who ran
__________
Page  11  of  15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:55:02 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 20324 of 2026
away is a “child” within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the JJ Act is a
matter that depends upon the materials to be collected during
investigation and the evidence to be let in at the trial. The mere fact that
the student could not be secured at the spot does not, by itself, render the
allegations unsustainable at the threshold. The Investigating Officer shall
make all endeavours to identify and examine the said student. Thus, the
allegations in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission
of cognizable offences by the petitioner, and the grounds urged on his
behalf are matters of defence which can be tested only at the trial. Point
(b) is answered accordingly.

18. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are
confined to the disposal of the present petition. The trial Court shall
decide the case on its own merits and in accordance with law,
uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court. It is open to
the petitioner to raise all defences available to him, including the plea of
non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, before the trial Court.
__________
Page  12  of  15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:55:02 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 20324 of 2026
Conclusion:-
19. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit
in the petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.11.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
RJR
__________
Page  13  of  15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:55:02 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 20324 of 2026
To
1. The Inspector Of Police,
Rajapalayam North Police Station
Virudhunagar District
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
__________
Page  14  of  15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:55:02 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 20324 of 2026
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
RJR
Pre-delivery order made in
CRL OP(MD) No. 20324 of 2026
05.11.2026
__________
Page  15  of  15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:55:02 pm )