Karnataka HC quashes proceedings against event manager in 2 drug cases citing lapses

BENGALURU: In a relief for New-Delhi based event manager and socialite Viren Khanna, the high court quashed proceedings in relation to two drug-peddling cases registered by city police, citing certain procedural lapses.
While one case is from 2019, the other is the Cottonpet case, which allegedly involved personalities from Sandalwood.
Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar observed: “What’s made out by the petitioner’s counsel is a procedural lapse.This can be set right. If the petitioner is actually involved in offences punishable under NDPS Act, he must be tried in accordance with the law and punished in case the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Procedural lapses shouldn’t come in way of prosecuting the petitioner. Though this petition is liable to be allowed, it should not be understood that the petitioner can’t be prosecuted without following the procedure established under law.”
‘Procedural errors can be rectified’
The judge further noted: “Permission is to be accorded to the prosecuting agency to set right all procedural mistakes and take action against the petitioner in accordance with law,” Justice Kumar pointed out that if FIR no.109/2020 is to do with offences said to have been committed between April 11, 2020 and September 4, 2020, the petitioner cannot be tried for earlier offences in 2015, 2018 and 2019.
“In the chargesheet, it is clearly mentioned that he (Khanna) had arranged parties at several places in 2015, 2018 and 2019 and sold narcotic substances. Previous crimes detected for the first time during investigation in connection with FIR no.109/2020 must be tried, but in keeping with the procedure established by law. Often, previous incidents are detected while probing another case,” the judge observed.
“Whenever past crimes committed by the same person come to light, nothing prevents police from filing a separate FIR and separate chargesheet if all the offences cannot be tried jointly as per Section 219 of CrPC,” Justice Kumar added.
Dwelling further, he said probably police were under the impression that the same FIR would suffice even for offences relating to 2015, 2018 and 2019. “The chargesheet says the last date of the petitioner’s involvement was on March 8, 2020 in a party called ‘Divine Ex-Maholli’ arranged at Ashoka Hotel. It doesn’t disclose his involvement in any offence committed after that and therefore, it is not understandable as to how the petitioner could have been arraigned as accused no.3 in FIR no.109/2020. Not only the FIR, but also the chargesheet against the petitioner requires to be quashed,” the judge said.
Khanna had claimed his prosecution in relation to two cases is in violation of Section 300 of CrPC and Article 20(3) of the Constitution. According to him, he was implicated as accused no.5 in FIR no. 588/2018, which was initially registered against three accused in relation to seizure of narcotics on November 2, 2018. He claimed that based on the statement of BK Ravishankar, accused no. 4, he (Khanna) came to be implicated and a separate FIR — no.109/2020 — was registered at Cottonpet police station.
Khanna said if probe disclosed he is said to have sold drugs like cocaine and ecstasy in the parties he arranged on November 3, 2018 and November 7, 2018, the two alleged incidents constitute distinct offences and, therefore, a separate FIR should have been registered.