Factual evidence of property ownership is not essential to sustain NDPS charges at the investigation stage.

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash FIR No. 2026 SDI 015

The FIR was registered after 48 kg of cannabis (ganja) was seized from a rented dwelling belonging to one Nipen Kal

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, Sanjay Deb, was the owner of the premises used for the illegal storage

The petitioner contended that he had moved away from the locality in 2019, that he was being victimized due to political rivalry, and that the land belonged to one Subodh Chandra Deb

the State argued that witness statements suggested the petitioner had purchased the land from Subodh Chandra Deb and was involved in the trade

1. Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed on the grounds of malicious prosecution and lack of direct evidence of possession.

2. Whether the lack of documentary proof of ownership of the seized premises at the investigation stage is sufficient to discharge the accused under the NDPS Act.

Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985, regarding the possession of commercial quantities of contraband

Section 25 of the NDPS Act, which provides punishment for any owner, occupier, or person having control of a premise who knowingly permits it to be used for commission of an offence

Section 29, which addresses abetment and criminal conspiracy

inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (Section 482 Cr.P.C.) to determine if the proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of law

The Court reasoned that because the investigation was in a "nascent state," the Investigating Officer (I.O.) required further scope to unearth the truth regarding the petitioner's involvement

The Court noted that ownership is not the sole criterion, as "occupying" or "having control over" a space is sufficient to attract liability

the Case Diary (C.D.) contained witness statements suggesting he had acquired the land from the previous owner and remained involved in such activities

The Court determined that at this preliminary stage, there was no scope to presume innocence or rule out a criminal conspiracy under Section 29, especially given the gravity of the commercial quantity seized

The Court dismissed the petition to quash the FIR, directed the return of the Case Diary to the I.O., and ordered that the I.O. be given further opportunity to verify the contentions raised by both parties. Proceeding dismissed