Kuncharapu Venkatesh vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioners, accused persons in FIR No. 45 of 2022 registered at Narayanpur Police Station, approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against them. The FIR was filed for alleged offences under Sections 270, 272, and 273 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 20(2) of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTP Act). The petitioners sought to quash the FIR and also prayed for the release of seized tobacco stock, cash, and mobile phones. They argued that their case was covered by a previous common order of the High Court.

Held

The Court allowed the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings in FIR No. 45 of 2022. The Court relied on its previous common order in Criminal Petition No. 9062 of 2021 and batch, dated 14.07.2022. In that order, the Court had held that the prosecuting agency could not fit its case to the provisions invoked under the COTP Act or the IPC for the mere possession or transportation of tobacco products. The Court reasoned that unless there is comprehensive legislation banning or restricting the use of tobacco products, persons dealing with them cannot be booked under the law, even though their use is injurious to health. The Court directed the Station House Officer/Investigating Officer to return the seized property/vehicle upon proper identification and verification of ownership, with due acknowledgment. It was clarified that if a charge sheet had already been filed, the petitioners could approach the concerned Magistrate for the return of seized property. The Court also noted that if the seized stock was expired, it should be destroyed with the Magistrate's permission.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in FIR No. 45 of 2022 are liable to be quashed, considering the allegations and the relevant provisions of law invoked? (Question of law) Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners contended that the case is squarely covered by a previous common order of the High Court in Criminal Petition No. 9062 of 2021 and batch, dated 14.07.2022. They argued that this Court had repeatedly quashed proceedings involving seized tobacco products on the grounds that Sections 270, 272, and 273 of the IPC and Section 20(2) of the COTP Act were not attracted. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondent State regarding the applicability of the provisions or the previous order.