Gujarat High Court
Dharmendra @ Dhamo Jethalal Baria vs The State Of Gujarat on 4 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19595/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 05/03/2025
Pronounced On : 04/04/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 19595 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DHARMENDRA @ DHAMO JETHALAL BARIA
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
SHREY H DAVE(8444) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to quash
and set aside the FIR being No.C.R.No.11186008210185 of 2021
registered with Una Police Station, Gir Somnath for the offences
under Sections 65(E), 81, 83, 98(2), 99 of the Prohibition Act and
all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19595/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
2. Facts of the case are as under :-
2.1 That the First Information Report is lodged by the
respondent no. 2 on 09.02.2021 for the incident which is alleged
to have occurred on the same day. The first informant and the
other police personnel were on patrolling duty, at that time, Mr.
P.P. Bambhaniya the Police Head Constable received a secret
information that one silver coloured Innova car bearing
registration no. GJ-06-BL-2034 would come from Ghoghla
towards Una and the said car is loaded with Indian made foreign
liquor. It is alleged that on receiving the said information the
first informant along with the other police personnel were
waiting for the said car near Delvada Petrol pump. It is alleged
that as soon as the said vehicle reached Delvada Petrol pump,
the same was stopped and on checking the said car from
backside of the trunk of the car, a secret partition was made,
wherein, Indian made foreign liquor bottles were hidden. It is
alleged that on inquiring from the persons who were seated in
the car, one of them was Kunalpari Dhirupari Goswami Bavaji
and other person was Vanraj Bhikhabhai Odedara. It is alleged
that on inquiring about the pass permit, the aforesaid persons
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19595/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
refused to have any pass permit for keeping the illicit liquor with
them. It is alleged that total 417 bottles worth Rs. 1,89,640/-
were found. It is alleged that on further inquiry from the
aforesaid two persons they have informed that the said liquor
bottles were loaded from Jai Ambe Bar of Dharmendra @Dhamo
and the same was to be delivered to one Divyesh @ D.K. Odedara
at Junagadh. It is alleged that the accused no. 1 and 2 were
caught with the muddamaal and it is alleged that the accused
no. 3 had loaded the said liquor bottles in the car of the accused
nos. 1 and 2 and the same was to be delivered to the accused no.
4 and the accused in connivance with each other have hatched a
conspiracy and have committed the alleged offence. Hence, FIR
was lodged.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Mangukia for the petitioner seeks
quashment of FIR on two grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that
the petitioner is resident of Union territory of Diu and he has
license to sell liquor in Diu. It is argued that since the petitioner
was holding license to sell liquour, he cannot be prosecuted
under the prohibition act applicable to State of Gujarat.
Secondly, it was argued that the petitioner is not found at the
spot, where raid was taken place. The petitioner has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19595/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
arraigned on the ground of statement of co-accused which is
inadmissible piece of evidence and therefore, it is submitted that
FIR since is baseless and vexatious, be quashed.
3.1. In support of above submission, learned advocate for
petitioner has relied on following judgments :-
i) Dharmenda @ Dhamo Jethalal Baria v/s. State of Gujarat
[Special Criminal Application No.11553 of 2021].
ii) Jignesh @ Jigo Jado Jagdishbhai Jarivala v/s. State of
Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.11508 of 2020]
iii) Mahendrabhai Dahayabhai (Kamli) Patel v/s. State of
Gujarat [ Criminal Misc. Application No.3992 of 2013]
iv) Yogeshbhai Bhikabhai Chaudhari v/s. State of Gujarat
[Criminal Misc. Application No.18793 of 2014].
4. On the other hand, learned APP argued that license is in
name of mother of the petitioner and not in the name of the
petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has no license to
sell liquour even in Union territory of Diu. It is submitted that
Indian made foreign liquour which is recovered from the spot
during raid and have been source for question FIR, was
intercepted in State of Gujarat. The petitioner is named in the
FIR as supplier of Indian made foreign liquor alleged to have
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19595/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
been sold withing territory of State of Gujarat. It is submitted
that whether the petitioner has sold Indian made foreign liqour
within territory of Dui or within territory of State of Gujarat is
subject matter of trial. Thus, it is submitted that FIR cannot be
quashed as the arguments / points can be decided during trial.
4.1. Upon above submissions, it is submitted to dismiss the
petition.
5. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and
considered record.
6. At page no.24(A) is license issued by Collector and Deputy
Commissioner of Excise, Diu. It reads as under :-
Dated: 11-oct-2001
Read : An application dated 07-07-2001 from SMT. Premilaben
Jethalal Bandokar Colony, Ghoghla-Diu.
ORDER:
It is here by order that the commissioner of Excise. Daman And
Diu Duman has Granted the approval for transfer of ownership
of liquor License No RS/IMFL-CL/91-52 from the name of late
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19595/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
Shri Jethalal Hira to the name of his namely Smt. Premelaben
Jethalal, Bandokar Colony Choghh Diu), under rule 104(2) of
goa, daman and Diu Party Rule 1964 with immediate effects
Collector and DY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
DIU
7. Perusal of aforesaid license issued by Collector,
demonstrate that Smt. Premalaben Jethalal resident of
Bandokar Colony, Choghla, Diu is holding liquor license No.RS /
IMFL-CL/91-52 from the name of late Shri Jethalal Hira
indicates that license which learned advocate for the petitioner
claims permitting the petitioner to sell liquor is standing in the
name of Smt. Premelaben from 11.10.2021. Therefore, upon
such license, the petitioner cannot sell Indian made foreign
liqour even within Union territory of Diu. Perusal of FIR indicates
that police official have received tip that in Car No.GJ-06-BL-
2034 accused were transporting Indian made foreign liqour. It
was intercepted near Madvi check post by police officials but car
was not stopped and it crossed check post and ran towards
Delvada, howbeit car was intercepted near Delvada Petrol Pump,
where it was found that person named viz. Krunalpari Goswami
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19595/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
and Vanraj Odedra transporting Indian made foreign liqour and
they have told that Indian made foreign liqour was supplied by
present petitioner. FIR does not disclose that Indian made
foreign liquor has been supplied by petitioner no.2 from Union
Territory of Diu. What could be noticed that statement of co-
accused is relevant piece of investigation which gives clue to
Investigating Officer to proceed further in investigation.
Therefore, statement of co-accused is relevant material for
investigation, though it may not be admissible in evidence, but it
is relevant material to proceed further in investigation, thus FIR
at this stage cannot be scuttle. What could be noticed that
quashing petition is filed at the stage of filing of FIR and
investigation is yet to be progressed in the matter. Thus,
statement of co-accused recorded during investigation is relevant
under section 10 of the Evidence Act.
8. In the case of Jayendra Saraswati v/s. State [AIR 2005 SC
716], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if prima facie
evidence of conspiracy exists, evidence of statement made by any
of the conspiratory in furtherance of common object is
admissible so far as investigation is concerned.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19595/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
9. At the outset, if role of the accused could be scan from
available record, the petitioner is arrayed either as supplier of
liqour or liquor was to be supplied to him. Admittedly, the role of
the petitioner unfurled during the statement of other accused
who are arrested in aforesaid FIR. However, the petitioner
approached this Court at initial stage of investigation for
quashing of FIR. Investigation of FIR is stayed by interim order.
Indeed statement of co-accused is not admissible in evidence but
it is relevant during the investigation. Learned advocate for the
petitioners relying upon the various judgment argued that since
co-accused statement is not admissible in evidence, FIR needed
to be quashed. At first blush argument looks attractive but stage
of deciding admissibility of evidence comes after filing charge
sheet; framing of charge and during recording of evidence. At the
initial stage of registration of FIR and starting of investigation on
the basis of statement of co-accused issue of admissibility would
not arise.
10. With profit, I may refer to observation in the case of
Kailash Govindram Rathi Versus State Of Gujarat [2008 (1) GLR
750], this Court has held in para 6,8,9 and 10 as under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19595/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
"6. At the outset it is required to be noted that against all
the respective applicants, the complainants are filed before
the different Police Stations for the offences punishable
under Ss. 66(B), 65(a)(e), 81, 43 read with Sec. 116(2) of
the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 . It is also required to be
noted that in almost all the cases the accused who were
caught are Drivers, Cleaners etc., transporting English
liquor from the places out of Gujarat to the State of
Gujarat. It is also required to be noted that there is
prohibition in the State of Gujarat. It is also required to be
noted that in almost all the cases allegations against the
respective applicants on the basis of the statements of the
persons who are arrested are that the applicants are either
suppliers of the liquor and/or liquor was to be supplied to
them for the purpose of sell within the State of Gujarat. In
almost all the cases the allegations is that the applicants
are absconding and most of them are from out of the State
of Gujarat. Now on the basis of the allegations and
averments in the complaints, and on the basis of the
statements of the co-accused who are arrested, the
Investigating Officer started to initiate investigation against
the applicants, at that initial stage all the applicants have
approached this Court by way of present application for
quashing and setting aside the respective complainants
against them solely on the ground that except the
statements of the co-accused there is no material and/or
evidence against them. This Court granted stay of further
investigation in almost all the cases. Now the question
which is required to be considered at this stage is whether
the investigation is to be commenced and/or proceeded on
the basis of the statements of the co-accused and whether
the Investigating Officer should be permitted to further
investigate the case and/or whether at this stage even
before the investigation is concluded respective
complainants are required to be quashed.
7. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the applicants
have relied upon the decision in the case of New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) have submitted that in the
aforesaid decision, this Court has taken a view that on the
basis of the statements of the co-accused there cannot be
any conviction. In one of the cases Jinabhai Kalabhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19595/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
Rajput (supra) the accused was convicted and in the case
of Suresh Chhotalal Verma (supra), the accused was
discharged. Now it is required to be noted at this stage that
in the case of Jinabhai Kalabhai Rajput (supra) the
question came to be considered at the time of appeal and
accused was convicted solely on the basis of the
statements of the co-accused and it was found that there
was no other material and/or evidence against the
accused. Now so far as the case of Suresh Chhotala Verma
(supra) is concerned in that case the question came to be
considered at time of discharge after chargesheet was
submitted and it was found considering the charge-sheet
papers that except the statements of the co-accused there
was no material and/or evidence against the accused and
considering the same accused came to be discharged.
Thus, the stage at which this Court intervened was the
stage at the time of discharge i.e. after the investigation
was completed and charge-sheet was filed. Under the
circumstances both the decisions are not applicable to the
facts of the present cases.
8. Identical question came to be considered by the Hon ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Malek Mondal (supra)
reported in 2005 10 SCC 608 and the case before the Hon
ble Supreme Court was that an application was submitted
u/s. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the
complaint and one of the ground canvassed on behalf of
the accused was that there was no material against the
petitioners except the inadmissible retracted statement
allegedly made by the co-accused. The Hon ble Supreme
Court confirmed the order passed by the High Court
refusing to quash the complaint on that ground at the
stage of investigation and the Hon ble Supreme Court has
held that the question about corroborative nature of
evidence has to be considered at the appropriate stage and
the High Court rightly declined the prayer to quash the
complaint at the initial stage when only cognizance had
taken and the accused was still to be interrogated.
Relevant paragraph No. 6 of the said judgement is
reproduced as under:
"6. The proceedings of the complaint are at the initial stage
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19595/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
after the cognizance has been taken. The petitioner could
not be interrogated since he has been avoiding to appear
before the NCB officer despite issue of various notices as
per the averments made in the complaint. The allegations
in the complaint are grave. The recover, according to the
prosecution, is of 2.050 kg of heroin which, according to
the statement of Dilip Das, belonged to the petitioner. The
question whether Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act has been
complied or not being a question of fact has to be gone into
on appreciation of evidence that may be adduced before
the Special Judge. Prima facie, the High Court has come to
the conclusion that there has been compliance. This is not
the stage for in-depth examination of this question. The
contention that there is no material against the petitioner
since the only material on record was inadmissible
retracted statement allegedly made by the co-accused Dilip
Das, also cannot be accepted, at this stage, when only
cognizance has been taken and the petitioner is still to be
interrogated. The question about corroborative nature of
evidence may also have to be gone into at the appropriate
state. The only other contention urged is about the lack of
power of the Special Judge to issue warrant of arrest." Now
considering the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in
the case of Mohd. Malek Mondal (supra) and considering
the facts of the present case, stage at which the
proceedings are pending i.e. at the initial stage of the
investigation, the contention on behalf of the respective
applicants that the complaints are required to be quashed
and set aside on the ground that except statements of the
co-accused there is no material and/or evidence against
the applicants, cannot be accepted.
9. It is required to be noted that investigation was at the
initial stage and the investigation was to be
initiated/proceeded further on the basis of the statements
of the co-accused and the allegations and averments in the
complainants. Before even the investigation is carried out,
the applicants have approached this Court and the Police
Officers are restrained from further investigation. It is also
required to be noted that in almost all the cases, the
applicants are absconding and/or residing outside State of
Gujarat. Unless and until the investigation is proceeded
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19595/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
further; the respective applicants are interrogated and till
the investigation is completed, it cannot be said that there
is no material and/or evidence against the applicants. All
these things are required to be considered after the
investigation is completed and appropriate report and/or
charge-sheet is submitted against the applicants and
thereafter, the question is required to be considered
whether the applicants are to be prosecuted or not. At the
initial stage of investigation the respective complaints
cannot be quashed and set aside solely on the ground that
at this stage there are only statements of the co-accused
which is inadmissible in evidence. Corroborative nature of
evidence during the course of investigation and statements
of co-accused can be considered at an appropriate stage.
Under the circumstances, at the initial stage complainants
cannot be quashed. It cannot be disputed that it is
statutory right of the Investigating Officer to investigate the
complainants and the offences and the Investigating
Officer cannot be restrained from further investigation
solely on the ground that at this stage only statements of
the co-accused is available. In fact as per this Court
statements of the co-accused, allegations and the
averments in the complainants to that effect can be the
basis for initiation of further investigation.
10. Under the circumstances, the prayer of the applicants
at this stage to quash the complainants and stall the
investigation at the initial stage cannot be accepted. All
those submissions are required to be considered at an
appropriate stage and not at the stage of investigation. The
submission of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf
of the applicant relying upon sec. 25 of the Indian
Evidence Act and Sec. 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code
are also not required to be considered at this stage, the
same can be considered at an appropriate stage after the
investigation is completed and appropriate report/
chargesheet is filed and/or even at the time of trial.
11. Recently, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Mansing Shakarlal (Damor) Mina v/s. State of Gujarat [2024(0)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19595/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
AIJEL HC 247952], after taking into consideration divergent
views expressed by this Court in regard to involvement of the
accused in the offence on the statement of co-accused and after
relying on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the
Mohd. Malek Mondal v/s. Pranjal Bardalai [(2005) 10 SCC 608],
has held in para 6.1 to 7.9 as under :-
"6.1 To prop up her contention, she relied on a judgment of
the Apex Court rendered in the case of Mohd. Malek
Mondal v. Pranjal Bardalai and Another, (2005) 10 SCC
608. She also placed reliance on the judgment of this
Court rendered in the case of Firozbhai Hajibhai Sodha v.
State of Gujarat, which is an unreported judgment
rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5836 of 2021
and also a judgment rendered in the case of Budhiyabhai
Somabhai Khalasi v. State of Gujarat, 2012 SCC OnLine
Guj 1300.
7. The facts of the case are absolutely not in
controversy. The other accused against whom the aforesaid
FIRs were registered, as per the prosecution story, they are
found to be in illegal possession of various types of liquor
and have been illegally transporting the same. They were
apprehended by the police and the contraband was seized
from their possession. When they were interrogated after
taking them into custody, during the course of
investigation, they revealed that the petitioner herein had
supplied the said various types of liquor to them. As
noticed supra, it is on the basis of the said statement of
the co-accused, the petitioner is now shown as one of the
accused in the above FIRs.
7.1 Now, the crucial question that arises for consideration
is whether the petitioner is entitled for quash of the FIR
registered against him on the sole ground that he was
shown as accused in all the above crimes only on the basis
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19595/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
of the statement given by the co-accused or not. According
to the petitioner, the said statement of co-accused is
inadmissible in evidence and he cannot be shown as
accused on the basis of the said statement of the co-
accused.
7.2 This Court has taken divergent views on the said
proposition of law. In some cases, this Court has taken a
view that registering FIR against a person solely on the
basis of the statement of the co-accused is not permissible
and that, the said FIR and the criminal proceedings
initiated thereon are liable to be quashed. The other
Coordinate Benches have taken a view that the statement
of co-accused serves as a clue to the Investigating Officer
regarding the role played by the said person in commission
of the said offence and when the case is at the
investigation stage, that the FIR and the criminal
proceedings initiated against him cannot be quashed and
held that, ultimately it is for the Investigating Officer either
to file the charge-sheet against him after collecting valid
evidence in proof of his complicity in commission of the
said crime or drop the proceedings if no other evidence is
available in proof of his complicity in the commission of the
said crime.
7.3 However, though there are divergent views expressed
by this Court, as discussed supra, the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Malek Mondal (supra), is
relevant in the context to consider. In that case also, the
petitioner therein sought quash of the FIR registered
against him on the ground that there was no material
against him except the inadmissible, retracted statement,
allegedly made by the co-accused. The High Court, where
the said quash petition was filed, declined to quash the
criminal proceedings initiated against him. When the said
order of the High Court was questioned before the Apex
Court, the Apex Court did not accept the contention that
since the material only available on record was
inadmissible, retracted statement, allegedly made by the
co-accused that the petitioner is entitled for quash of the
criminal proceedings and thereby, upheld the judgment of
the High Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19595/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
7.4 In another judgment rendered in the case of
Mohammed Farsin v. State, represented through the
Intelligence Officer, rendered in Criminal Misc. Application
No. 296 of 2014, the Supreme Court observed as under:
"...The confession of a accused gives a clue to the
investigating authorities as to how to investigate the matter
and against whom to investigate the matter. Thereafter, it
is for the Investigating Officer to collect the evidence
against the said person who has been named by the co-
accused...."
7.5 Thus, from the ratio laid down in the above judgment
by the Apex Court, the legal position is made clear that the
statement of coaccused can be considered and treated as a
clue or a piece of information to inquire or investigate as to
the role played by the said person in commission of the
said offence and if any satisfactory and reliable evidence or
material is found during the course of investigation in
support of the said statement given by the co-accused,
certainly, the said person against whom the said evidence
is available, would be liable for prosecution. At the stage
when the investigation has commenced or the investigation
is going on, in the said facts and circumstances of the
case, it would not be proper to interdict the investigation or
to quash the FIR and the criminal proceedings initiated
thereon against the said person.
7.6 The same view was taken by this Court in the
judgment rendered in the case of Firozbhai Hajibhai Sodha
(supra). This Court in the said judgment has referred all
the earlier judgments of this Court rendered on the point
wherein this Court has held that the said statement of the
co-accused can certainly be taken as a clue by the
Investigating Officer and proceed with investigation against
the said person by registering the case against him and
that the proceedings cannot be quashed. This Court also in
the said judgment relied on the judgment of the Apex
Court rendered in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.
Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav, (2004) 7 SCC 528, and
the above cited judgment in Mohammed Farsin's case and
held that the FIR and the criminal proceedings initiated
against a person on the basis of the statement of co-
accused cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19595/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
CrPC.
7.7 In the present context, it is relevant to consider the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the above case of
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra). In the said judgment,
Supreme Court clearly held that when the only other
evidence available to the prosecution to connect the person
with the crime is alleged confession of the co-accused
which according to the learned counsel was inadmissible
evidence, it is too premature to accept the said contention.
7.8 The Apex Court further held in the said judgment that
the admissibility or otherwise of the confessional statement
and the effect of evidence adduced by the prosecution and
the merit of the evidence that may be adduced by the
prosecution are all matters to be considered at the stage of
the trial.
7.9 Thus, though there are divergent views expressed by
this Court on the said proposition of law, in view of the
authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court on
the point as discussed supra, which is the law of land and
binding on this Court, this Court has absolutely no
hesitation to hold that the proceedings against the
petitioner herein that are initiated by way of registering the
FIR on the basis of the statement of co-accused, cannot be
quashed in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under
Section 482 of CrPC. If ultimately, the Investigating Officer
finds material or evidence regarding the complicity of the
petitioner in commission of the said offence, certainly, he
would be liable for prosecution along with the other
accused. If no material is found on the said clue, certainly,
the Investigating Officer would drop the proceedings
against him at the time of filing final report before the
concerned Court. Therefore, the petitions are devoid of
merit and they are liable to be dismissed."
12. At initial stage, where cognizable offence is disclosed in
FIR, whether investigation can be thwart by exercising inherent
power under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19595/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
the case of Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Ltd. v/ s. State
of Uttar Pradesh [2020 SCC Online SC 958], in para 41 has held
as under :-
"41. It is needless to point out that ever since the decision
of the Privy Council in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir
Ahmed AIR 1945 PC 18, the law is well settled that Courts
would not thwart any investigation. It is only in cases
where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is
disclosed in the first information report that the Court will
not permit an investigation to go on. As cautioned by this
Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335, the power of quashing should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the
rarest of rare cases. While examining a complaint, the
quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark
upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the
complaint. In S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat (2001) 7 SCC
659 this Court again cautioned that criminal proceedings
ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a
complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than
an ordinary rule. In S.M. Datta (supra), this Court held
that if a perusal of the first information report leads to
disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are
barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since
the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres
of activities and one ought not to tread over the other
sphere."
13. The proceedings against the petitioner are initiated by way
of impugned FIR on the basis of statement of co-accused and it
cannot be quashed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. at this juncture.
Statement of co-accused can be taken as clue by Investigating
Officer to proceed with investigation against the petitioner by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19595/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
registering the case against him. If any evidence or material is
found during course of investigation in support of statement of
co-accused, the petitioner would be liable for prosecution,
otherwise prosecution would be dropped. In the present case,
charge-sheet is not filed and therefore, it would be improper to
quash the FIR at this stage. Moreover, argument of learned
advocate Mr.Mangukia for the petitioner that petitioner is just
seller in Union territory of Diu as license holder, this submission
cannot be accepted on the ground that total liquor which was
found while intercepting vehicle was 422 bottles of Indian Made
Foreign Liqour. If the person has license to sell liqour, he would
not sell this much quantity of liquor except for the purpose of
transporting it to State of Gujarat.
14. So far as judgments relied by learned advocate for the
petitioners is concerned, most of them are on the facts where, in
charge sheet no evidence connecting the accused with offence
was found, except statement of co-accused and would not render
any assistance to the petitioners.
15. In view of above, the petition is dismissed. Notice is
discharged. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19595/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
16. Before parting, it is observed that if ultimately, no material
is found against the petitioner after completion of investigation
and if charge-sheet is filed on the basis of statement of co-
accused, then the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate
proceedings available under law challenging charge-sheet and to
seek quashing of impugned FIR.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
