IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APELLATE SIDE

The Hon’ble JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH

CRR 3987 of 2024

+

CRAN 2 of 2025 + CRAN 4 of 2025 + CRAN 6 of 2026

With

CRR No. 3678 of 2024

+

CRAN 2 of 2025 + CRAN 4 of 2025 + CRAN 6 of 2026

With

CRR No. 3680 of 2024

+

CRAN 2 of 2025 + CRAN 4 of 2025 + CRAN 6 of 2026

Devendra Ahuja @ Chintu

v/s.

The State of West Bengal

For the Petitioner: Mr. Shaswat Bansal, Adv.

Mr. R. Bansal, Adv.

Mr. Y. Saxena, Adv.

For the State: Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, Adv.

Ms. Samira Grewal, Adv.

Heard on: 02.07.2026

Date: 21.07.2026

SUVRA GHOSH, J. :-

[[

1) In the three applications, the petitioner seeks quashing of cases registered

under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short the

NDPS) Act, against him being NDPS Case no. 15 of 2023, NDPS Case no.

2

122 of 2022 and NDPS Case no. 73 of 2020 . Since the issues to be

adjudicated in the three petitions are similar/co-related, the matters are

taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by a

common judgment.

2) In CRR 3678 of 2024, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that the petitioner was in custody in connection with FIR no. 875 of 2022

dated 12

th

August, 2022 at the time of registration of the present FIR. The

petitioner has been implicated on the basis of statement of co-accused

Suman Sardar disclosed during his police remand that the phensedyl

cough syrup was supplied by the petitioner. Admittedly no contraband

article was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and his

implication on the basis of statement of the co-accused is inadmissible in

evidence. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Jai Ram Ji Ki Medical

Agency at Agra from 2019 and has valid drug licence issued under the

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1945. He is authorised to deal in wholesale

medicines and has not violated any term or condition of the license

granted to him.

3) The witnesses relied upon by the prosecution in the charge sheet can be

termed as hearsay evidence and cannot be relied upon. No evidence has

been collected by the prosecution to suggest that the petitioner has any

nexus with the 53 bottles of phensedyl cough syrup seized from the

possession of the co-accused. Nexus of the co-accused with the petitioner

has also not been established. There is no money trail or CDR to prima

facie establish connection between the petitioner and co-accused Suman

Sardar. The conditions laid down under Section 35/54 of the NDPS Act

3

have not been satisfied. No fruitful result has also yielded from the police

custody of the petitioner. There is, in fact, no material which can be

translated into evidence at the trial stage and it would be miscarriage of

justice to let the proceeding continue against the petitioner. The petitioner

filed an application seeking his discharge from the case which was

dismissed by the learned trial Court by an order passed on 5

th

August,

2024.

4) In CRR 3680 of 2024, the petitioner has sought quashing of the

proceedings in Kaliachak Police Station Case no. 0875 dated 12

th

August,

2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that upon

searching the house of one Alok Kumar Mondal, 1646 bottles of codein

phosphate were seized. Alok Kumar Mondal disclosed that the said drugs

were purchased from Bengal Drug Agency in Kaliachak owned by one

Azizur Rahman. During interrogation of Azizur Rahaman in police custody

he disclosed that he purchased the medicines from one Chintu with the

help of other co-accused but never met Chintu. The petitioner was

arrested pursuant to such disclosure statement of the co-accused which

is inadmissible in evidence. The stance of the petitioner in this case is

similar to that of the earlier case being CRR 3678 of 2024. According to

the petitioner, no incriminating material has transpired against him

during investigation and allegation against him is solely based on the

statement of co-accused without any corroboration of the same. The

petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

4

5) In CRR 3987 of 2024 the petitioner has sought qua shing of Kaliachak

Police Station Case no. 718 of 2020 dated 20

th

September, 2020 on

similar grounds as in the earlier applications.

6) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following

authorities in support of his contention.

1. State of Haryana & Others v/s. Bhajan Lal & Others reported in

1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335;

2. Mahmood Ali v/s. State of U.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of

2023;

3. Karan Talwar v/s. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2024

INSC 1012;

4. Mamta Mukund Kulkarni v/s . State of Maharashtra in 2024:

BHC-AS:31007-DB;

5. Ashok Jain v/s. Narcotics Control Bureau reported in 2019

Supreme Court Cases OnLine Cal 2072;

6. Kunwarpal v/s. State in 2024: DHC: 1423;

7. Mamta Sapra v/s. The State Govt. o f NCT of Delhi in

2024:DHC:4852;

8. Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v/s. State of Gujarat and

Another in Criminal Appeal No. 714 of 2019 @ SLP (Criminal)

No. 5415 of 2017;

9. Noor Aga v/s. State of West Bengal and Another reported in

(2008) 16 Supreme Court Cases 417 ;

10. Vibhor Rana v/s. The Union of India in CRR 1620 of 2024; and

5

11. Gopal Kumar @ Gopal Singh @ Gopal v/s. The Union of India

in CRR 1621 of 2024.

7) Opposing the prayer of the petitioner, learned counsel for the State has

canvassed his argument as follows:-

8) In CRR 3678 of 2024, one Suman Sardar was apprehended during the

smuggling of ganja and phensedyl across the border. The petitioner ’s

name transpired during interrogation of Suman Sardar following which

the petitioner was shown as arrested in the present case following his

interrogation at Malda Correctional Home where he was detained in

connection with other cases. Besides the statement of the petitioner and

the co-accused, other witnesses have also implicated him in the offence

and have prima facie demonstrated his involvement in traffickin g of

narcotics.

9) In CRR 3680 of 2024, the police raided the house of accused Alok Kumar

Mondal and apprehended him. On search, 1646 bottles of codein

phosphate and chloropheniramine malate syrup “choco” were recovered .

The accused was unable to produce any document in support of the

same. The accused stated that he purchased the seized articles from one

Md. Azizur Rahman who was a chemist and owner of a medical shop

named Bengal Drug Agency situated at Kaliachak New Market. Azizur was

arrested and revealed during interrogation that he purchased the said

contraband articles from the petitioner who was a resident of Agra. He

also stated that he never met the petitioner and only spoke to him over

telephone. The petitioner was thereafter arrested. His accounts statement

received from the branch manager of Axis Bank, Hing Ki Mandi branch,

6

Agra revealed suspicious transactions which were subject to verification.

Details of immovable property of the petitioner and his family members

were collected and the investigating officer assumed that he owned

disproportionate assets and property in the names of his family members,

his close associates and himself. The statement of two witnesses Tarikul

Mia @ Mithun and Md. Kajirul Hoque @ Kaju recorded under Section 67

of the NDPS Act discloses active involvement of the petitioner in the

offence. The petitioner has also threatened the drug inspector Jhansi, U.P

who conducted several raids in his place. His statement has also been

recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The mob ile phone of the

petitioner has been sent for recovery of data and data cloning.

10) In CRR 3987 of 2024, the petitioner was initially not implicated. After

submission of charge sheet, credible information was received from the

investigating officer of Kaliachak P.S. case no. 875 of 2022 for which a

prayer was submitted for reopening the case. Such prayer being allowed,

the case was reopened and investigation proceeded with. The statements

of the petitioner and two witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. Letters were issued to Abbott Health Care

Private Limited by the investigating officer seeking information with

regard to supply of phensedyl chloropheniramine malate and codein

phosphate cough syrup manufactured by the said company and allegedly

supplied to the petitioner. No reply was received by the investigating

officer. Supplementary charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner.

Learned counsel submits that sufficient incriminating material has

transpired against the petitioner in course of investigation prima facie

7

suggesting his involvement in the offence. The petitioner has several

criminal antecedents to his credit.

11) Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following authorities in

support of his contention.

1. State of Haryana & Others v/s. Bhajan Lal & Others reported

in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604;

2. Amit Kapoor v/s. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9

Supreme Court Cases 460;

3. State of Tamil Nadu by Insp. of Police v/s. N Suresh Rajan &

Ors. reported in (2014) 11 Supreme Court Cases 709;

4. Sonu Gupta v/s Deepak Gupta & Ors reported in (2015) 3

Supreme Court Cases 424;

5. M.E. Shivalingamurthy v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation

reported in (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 768;

6. Supriya Jain v/s. The State of Haryana reported in (2023) 7

Supreme Court Cases 711; and

7. State of Maharashtra and Another v/s. Dr. Maroti. reported in

AIR 2022 Supreme Court 5595.

12) I have considered the rival contention of the parties and material on

record.

13) At the outset, the legal parameters for consideration of the applications

filed by the accused/petitioner seeking quashing of the criminal

proceedings against him need to be considered.

14) In the authority in the State of Haryana and Others (supra), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has given a note of caution to the effect that the power of

8

quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and

with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the

Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the

reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR

or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not

confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim

or caprice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the authority in Amit Kapoor

(supra) has laid down some of the principles to be considered for

quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or

Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be, which are set

out:-

“27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section

482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is

to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal

proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the

Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that

too in the rarest of rare cases.

27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted

allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents

submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the

allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no

prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic

ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may

interfere.

9

27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous

examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case

would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing

of charge.

27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent

patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might

be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court

should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in

exercise of its inherent powers.

27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions

of the Code or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution

and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to

provide specific protection to an accused.

27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right

of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender.

27.7. The process of the Court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique

or ultimate/ulterior purpose.

27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appear from the record and

documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a

‘civil wrong’ with no ‘element of criminality’ and does not satisfy the basic

ingredients of a criminal offence, the Court may be justified in quashing the

charge. Even in such cases, the Court would not embark upon the critical

analysis of the evidence.

10

27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is

that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to

determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the

case would end in a conviction; the Court is concerned primarily with the

allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if

so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.

27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-

fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating

agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.

27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an

offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a

criminal complaint cannot be maintained.

27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or

under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external

materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence

was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has

to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the

prosecution.

27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous

prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should

be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its

quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the

11

records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents

or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.

27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the Code,

suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its

jurisdiction to frame a charge.

27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it

would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice

favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex

debito justitiae, i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of

which alone, the courts exist.”

15) The authorities in State of Tamil Nadu (supra), Sonu Gupta (supra) and

Supriya Jain (supra) echo the said proposition of law. The authority in

State of Maharashtra and Another (supra) refers to the decision in M.L.

Bhatt v/s. M.K Pandita reported in AIR OnLine 2002 SC 255 and observes

that while considering the question of quashing of FIR, the High Court

would not be entitled to appreciate by way of sifting the material collected

in course of investigation including the statements recorded under

Section 161 Cr.PC.

16) The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the authority in State of Haryana (supra)

has laid down certain categories of cases by way of illustration wherein

inherent power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised.

“(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the

complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in

12

their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a

case against the accused;

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other

materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable

offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section

156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the

purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and

the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the

commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence

but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is

permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as

contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and

inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever

reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding

against the accused;

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of

the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is

instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or

where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,

providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide

and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior

13

motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite

him due to private and personal grudge.”

17) Allegation against the petitioner in the three complaints is under Section

20/21/23/27A/29 of the NDPS Act. No recovery has been admittedly

made from the petitioner in connection with any of the complaints. The

petitioner’s name has transpired from the statement of co-accused. The

cases primarily rest on the disclosure statement of the petitioner himself

and that of the co-accused which undoubtedly cannot translate into

admissible evidence against the petitioner at the time of trial. The

presumption with regard to culpable mental state of the

accused/petitioner as enumerated in Section 35 of the NDPS Act

operates only after the initial burden existing upon the prosecution is

satisfied after which the burden shifts on the accused. The standard of

proof required to prove the guilt of the accused on the prosecution is

“beyond all reasonable doubt” whereas it is “preponderance of

probability” on the accused. To bring within its purview the requirement

of Section 54 of the Act, element of possession of the contraband by the

accused is essential so as to shift the burden on the accused. [Noor Aga

v/s. State of West Bengal and Another reported in (2008) 16 Supreme

Court Cases 417]. Herein, no contraband substance was recovered from

the possession of the petitioner.

18) The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Jai Ram Ji Ki Medical Agency in

Agra and has produced drug licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

He is an authorized dealer in wholesale medicines. Charge

sheets/supplementary charge sheets have been submitted against the

14

petitioner. Though monetary transactions between the petitioner’s

company and several other companies have transp ired in course of

investigation, there is nothing to prima face indicate that these

transactions pertain to narcotic substance. Mere discover y of

disproportionate assets of the petitioner and huge monetary transactions

in his bank accounts do not ipso facto suggest that he has been dealing

in contraband substance.

19) Statement of two witnesses Tarikul Mia @ Mithun and Md. Kazirul Hoque

@ Kaju reveals that they have heard about the involvement of the

petitioner in narcotics trade. Such hearsay evidence is inadmissible in

evidence.

20) The confessional statement of the petitioner has not led to any recovery.

The General Manager (HR), Abbot Health Care Private Limited Company

was requested to inform whether the batch numbers of the seized

phensedyl were manufactured by his company but no reply was

received. The mobile phone of the petitioner has been seized. But there is

no call details record suggesting communication between the petitioner

and the co-accused in respect of transaction of contraband.

21) It is a fact that the petitioner allegedly assaulted a drug inspector and

resisted inspection of his premises. A separate criminal case has been

registered against him in this connection in Uttar Pradesh.

22) The allegation against the petitioner is based on his confessional

statement and statement of the co-accused as well as other hearsay

evidence. Even if the material collected in course of investigation is

accepted in entirety, it will not prima facie constitute any offence, as

15

alleged, against the petitioner. The case falls within the third category of

cases laid down in the authority in State of Haryana (supra). No nexus of

the petitioner with either the co-accused or the offence alleged having

been prima facie established during investigation, this Court is of the

view that allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioner

shall be an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner should not

be made to suffer the ordeal of a trial which shall not lead anywhere.

23) In the light of the observation made hereinabove, the revisional

applications being CRR 3987 of 2024, CRR 3678 of 2024 and CRR 3680

of 2024 are allowed.

24) The connected applications are accordingly disposed of.

25) The order passed by the learned Judge Special Court, NDPS Act, Nadia

at Krishnanagar on 5

th

August, 2024 in NDPS Case no. 15 of 2023

pertaining to CRR No. 3678 of 2024 is set aside/quashed. The

application filed by the petitioner therein under Section 227 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure is allowed.

26) Proceedings in Hogalberia Police Station Case no. 39 of 2023 dated 23

rd

February, 2023, Kaliachak Police Station Case no. 0875 dated 12

th

August, 2022 and Kaliachak Police Station Case no. 718 of 2020 dated

20

th

September, 2020 be quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

27) The petitioner be set at liberty at once and discharged from his bail bond.

16

28) There shall however be no order as to costs.

29) Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied

to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual formalities.

(Suvra Ghosh, J)