Accused’s Claim Of Earlier Arrest Won’t Quash 21-Kg Ganja Case, Madras HC Says Dispute Must Be Tested At Trial

The petitioner, arrayed as A1, sought to quash the final report in C.C. No. 564 of 2025, arising from a case alleging that he and two others were travelling in a car with a total of 21 kilograms of ganja, a commercial quantity.

The petitioner’s sole ground was that he had been arrested by another police station on 12 November 2024 at about 12:40 p.m., contrary to the prosecution’s case that he was arrested by the respondent police on 13 November 2024 at about 1:15 a.m.

The final report alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.

In exercising its quashing jurisdiction, the High Court should not assess the reliability or validity of evidence, resolve disputed questions of fact, or decide the accused’s defence; those matters are for the trial court on the evidence.

The Court relied on Devendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2019) 4 SCC 351, concerning inconsistencies in witness statements; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686, concerning disputed factual defences; and M. Jayanthi v. K. R. Meenakshi & Anr., Crl. A. No. 1817 of 2019, decided 2 December 2019, on the limits of inquiry when considering a quashing petition.

The Court also referred to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in describing the applicable quashing jurisdiction.

The petitioner’s arrest-timing contention required resolution of a factual dispute and could not be determined on a quashing petition.

The Court held that the issue could be relevant to bail and could be tested at trial, including through cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.

Applying the cited authorities, it declined to assess the evidentiary merits of the competing arrest accounts or to find that the prosecution was malicious; the asserted ground therefore did not justify quashing the final report.

It left the petitioner at liberty to raise all available grounds before the trial court and directed that the trial be completed within six months of receipt of a copy of the order.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.