Yogesh Kumar Dewangan vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Yogesh Kumar Dewangan, proprietor of Jai Maa Sharda Medical Hall, filed a petition seeking to quash an FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order, and framing of charges under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The prosecution alleged illegal stocking and selling of narcotic and psychotropic medicines. A decoy customer purchased tablets, leading to a search of the petitioner's premises where various medicines, including Tramadol injections and Codeine-based syrup, were recovered. The petitioner contended he held a valid drug license, procured medicines through authorized distributors with valid GST invoices, and that the transaction was incomplete when police intervened. The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Held

The High Court held that the petitioner's defence, which relies on his drug license, GST invoices, the alleged incompleteness of the transaction, and procedural irregularities in the trap proceedings, raises disputed questions of fact. These disputed questions cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court reiterated that it is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or meticulously examine evidence at this stage. The scope of scrutiny is limited to whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offence and make out a prima facie case. The Court found that the allegations in the FIR, material collected, and charge-sheet, when taken at face value, disclose a prima facie case requiring adjudication by the trial court. Therefore, the case did not fall within the exceptional categories warranting the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing. The petition was dismissed, with a clarification that the observations were confined to the petition and would not prejudice either party during the trial.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, can quash criminal proceedings when the defence involves disputed questions of fact, such as the validity of a drug license, procurement of medicines through GST invoices, the alleged incompleteness of a transaction, and procedural irregularities in trap proceedings? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he is a licensed pharmacist possessing a valid drug license and that the seized medicines were lawfully procured under valid GST invoices. He further contended that no completed sale occurred as the police intervened before the transaction could be verified and invoiced, and that the trap proceedings suffered from procedural defects, including the absence of a pre-trap memorandum, chemical treatment, or hand wash tests. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions for quashing proceedings in exceptional circumstances. Revenue/State's arguments: The State did not file a specific reply, but the Court's reasoning implies that the prosecution's case, as presented in the FIR and charge-sheet, disclosed a prima facie case. The Court's analysis focused on the limitations of the High Court's inherent powers in quashing proceedings.