Mumbai: Observing that the proceedings are manifestly frivolous and vexatious, Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside an FIR under NDPS Act and the consequent proceedings against ex-actor Mamta Kulkarni in connection with a 2016 drug bust case. “Mere presence of the petitioner in one of the [drug cartel’s] meetings... would definitely not be sufficient for sustaining conviction,” it said, allowing Kulkarni’s petition.

In the July 22 verdict, Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande said the continuation of prosecution “would be nothing short of abuse of process of court and despite filing of chargesheet, we do not deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to seek discharge, but on being satisfied that this is a fit case where we should exercise our inherent powers, since the proceedings are manifestly frivolous and vexatious”.

Thane police had in April 2016 arrested two persons for possession of 1kg of ephedrine. After a preliminary probe, 10 others were arrested and seven were shown as absconding, including the alleged kingpin Vicky Goswami. The prosecution alleged that the co-accused hatched a conspiracy in a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, to transport ephedrine to manufacture meth from a Solapur factory to be sold throughout the world.

Initially, 70 kg of processed ephedrine was smuggled to Kenya and delivered to Goswami, who sent crores of rupees to Gujarat via hawala routes. Thereafter, 1,300kg of ephedrine was smuggled out and passed to Kenya.

Kulkarni was arraigned as an accused through a supplementary chargesheet relying on the statements of two co-accused that she had been present at the hotel meeting. Her advocate, V M Thorat, said no role was attributed to her, except for her presence, and she could not be vicariously held liable for the act of the accused. Also, she could not face trial on the statements of the co-accused.

HC went through the statements of the co-accused, including the promoter of the Solapur company, to transfer/sell shares to Kulkarni and to make her its director. They said on perusal of the chargesheet, “we are of the view that this material is not sufficient to sustain a charge against her under NDPS Act”, specifically the sections for knowingly acquiring, possessing and using any property derived from an offence committed and financing illicit trafficking and harbouring offenders. There is no material to demonstrate that the discussion “about transfer/purchase of shares in her name and making her director of the company, was ever given effect to,” it said.