1. In this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the criminal proceeding arising out of Sarangada P.S. Case No.137 of 2023 (C.T. Case No.108 of 2023 pending in the court of the learned Special Judge-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Balliguda), contending that his acts were in bona fide discharge of official duty under valid inter-state authorization. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

Page 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Mar-2026 17:51:31 II. SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/STATE:

4. Learned counsel for the State earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

sheet materials disclose a prima facie cognizable offence, as per the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra).

(ii) It is contended that at the time of detection, the petitioner failed to produce any contemporaneous written authorization, seizure documents, arrest memo, or prior intimation to local police, thereby raising reasonable suspicion of unlawful possession and transportation of ganja.

(iii) The prosecution asserts that the petitioner, a Head Constable, has not produced any notification or statutory empowerment under Sections 41 or 42 of the NDPS Act authorizing him to conduct search, seizure or arrest within the territorial jurisdiction of Odisha.

1 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 Page 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Mar-2026 17:51:31

(iv) The State emphasizes that statutory presumptions under the NDPS Act operate once possession and surrounding circumstances are shown, and the burden to establish lawful authority or good faith conduct is a matter of evidence to be tested during trial, not in quashing proceedings.

(v) It is argued that the plea of protection under Section 69 NDPS Act and Section 48 CrPC involves disputed questions of fact, including whether the petitioner was duly empowered, whether he acted within statutory limits, and whether his conduct satisfies the requirement of good faith, all of which necessitate full evidentiary scrutiny before the trial court.

IV. EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL MATRIX:

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

6. The petitioner's challenge under Section 482 CrPC calls for cautious scrutiny of the statutory scheme and settled law. It is well settled that the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to quash FIR/charge‐sheet is "sparingly" exercised and only to prevent abuse of process.

7. In Bhajan Lal (Supra) the Supreme Court enumerated limited categories warranting quashing, for example, where allegations even taken at face value disclose no offence, or where continuance would result in miscarriage of justice. The petitioner bears the burden of showing that this is an exceptional case. Unless the FIR is palpably frivolous, baseless or the case is mala fide, a trial court's domain will not lightly be invaded.

Page 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Mar-2026 17:51:31

8. By contrast, here the FIR and charge‐sheet allege possession of about 17.5 kg ganja (a quantity far beyond a "small quantity" under the NDPS Act ) by the persons intercepted. Those allegations on the face of its disclose cognizable offences under NDPS Act (trafficking and related offences) under Sections 20 and 27A . The petitioner has not shown that the ingredients of any charge are wholly absent or that the process has been misused.

9. Indeed, possession of contraband is prima facie established by the charge‐sheet, invoking the statutory presumptions under NDPS law. It is not open to the Court at this stage to determine factual disputes or weigh evidence. As the Court warned in Bhajan Lal (supra), interference in ongoing investigation is inappropriate except in cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice. No such exceptional circumstance is made out here in the present case.

10. Section 48 CrPC provides that, "for the purpose of arresting without warrant any person whom he is authorised to arrest, [a] police officer may pursue such person into any place in India". This all-India power, however, is strictly limited to the arrest of a person "whom he is authorised to arrest." The petitioner was a Head Constable in Karnataka, not an officer "superior in rank" under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, and had no magistrate's warrant from Odisha. He carried no authorisation or letter of transit to validly pursue or detain the accused across State lines. He operated entirely without local sanction: no prior intimation was given to Odisha police, nor was any Karnataka IO or warrant-holder present.

Page 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Mar-2026 17:51:31 In fact, there is no legal basis to treat him as lawfully executing an "inter‐state pursuit" under Section 48 .

11.On the contrary, the facts suggest that he simply moved contraband across jurisdictions in the company of a suspect, all without coordinating with local authorities. In this situation it cannot be said that the petitioner was engaged in a bona fide "pursuit" under the CrPC provision. The failure to produce any arrest memo, transit remand or coordinating documents further underscores that no lawful arrest procedure took place at the scene. In effect, Section 48 does not afford the petitioner a carte blanche: he was not shown to have legal authority to arrest the person in Odisha, and hence the pursuit power does not validate his actions.

12.Now, Section 69 of the NDPS Act is perused, it grants broad immunity i.e. no prosecution lies against any Government officer or other person "for anything in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act". This protective clause is intended to encourage officers to act decisively in combating drug crimes. This can be called an amaury Section for officers acting in good faith especially their official duty.

13.As held by the Supreme Court in Bharti Arora v. State of Haryana2 , actions taken by police in discharge of their duties are protected by Section 69 unless malafide is shown. The Court observed as follows:

14.However, the key question under Section 69 is factual. The protection extends only where the officer has acted in good faith and within the colour of lawful authority. Whether that threshold is met in the present case cannot be presumed.

15.The petitioner does not dispute that he was found in possession of the contraband. He also does not dispute that no local police authority was associated at the time of search, detention or seizure, nor was any written authorization, case diary extract, seizure memo, or prior intimation produced at the spot. His act of detaining the accused and handling the seized material without the presence of the Investigating Officer of the originating case or any competent local authority raises a serious question: was he acting pursuant to lawful empowerment, or beyond it? The answer to this question cries for a thorough trial.

16.Good faith under Section 69 is not a talisman. There needs to be certain lawful competence to it. An officer may honestly believe he is acting correctly, yet if he has no jurisdiction to do what he did, the statutory shield cannot be mechanically invoked. The existence of authority, the scope of that authority, and the genuineness of the petitioner's belief are all matters intertwined with evidence which is quite invisible in the present case.

17.At this stage, the Court is not called upon to pronounce on guilt or innocence. The limited inquiry is whether the defence of immunity is so unimpeachable that the proceeding deserves to be interdicted at the threshold. Given the disputed circumstances surrounding authorization Page 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Mar-2026 17:51:31 and intent, that determination cannot be made in a petition for quashing. These are matters which the State is entitled to test in trial. V. CONCLUSION:

18.In the result, this Court finds no ground to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. The FIR and charge-sheet disclose prima facie cognizable offences, and the petitioner's defences (inter-state cooperation and good faith) raise disputed factual issues inappropriate for pre-trial determination. Even taking the petitioner's version at its face value, the lack of statutory empowerment and procedure by which he detained the accused persons and seized the contraband, casts serious doubt on his claim of acting under lawful authority. The petition does not fall within any category of abuse or non-compliance that would compel quashing at this stage.

19.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The trial will proceed to decide all questions of jurisdiction, immunity and guilt.

20.The interim order staying the proceedings, if any, passed earlier is vacated.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 27th February, 2026/ Page 9