Gujarat High Court
Yuvrajsinh Jadeja S/O Rajendrasinh ... vs State Of Gujarat on 30 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10310/2019 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 10310 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 10315 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 10948 of 2019
==========================================================
YUVRAJSINH JADEJA S/O RAJENDRASINH JADEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DILIP P JOSHI(1819) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR. BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 30/04/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the respondent-State.
2. Since the issues involved in all these three petitions are
similar in nature and arise out of connected facts, they are
heard together and are being disposed of by this common
order. Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties
have independently advanced their submissions, whereas the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor has appeared commonly
for the respondent-State in all the petitions.
3. By way of this applications under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed to
quash and set aside the FIRs being C.R. No.III 29 of 2019,
Bhachau Police Station, C.R. No. III 67 of 2019, Bhachau
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10310/2019 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
Police Station, C.R. No.III 94 of 2019, Lakadiya Police
Station under Sections 65 A E, 116(B), and 81 of the
Prohibition Act and all the consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
4. Facts of the case are as under :-
4.1. It is alleged that the Local Crime Branch received specific
intelligence indicating that Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL)
was stored near the overbridge in Village Old Moti Chirai,
Taluka Bhachau, by two individuals, including the present
petitioner. Pursuant to this information, a raid was conducted
during late-night hours, and IMFL was allegedly seized from
open land situated in the jungle area of the said village.
4.2. The co-accused was granted anticipatory bail by this
Hon'ble Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 7878 of 2019.
The petitioner had also filed an anticipatory bail application
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anjar, being
Criminal Misc. Application No. 340 of 2019, which came to be
rejected. Thereafter, Criminal Misc. Application No. 11890 of
2019 filed before the Hon'ble High Court was disposed of on
01.07.2019. The petitioner subsequently made a
representation before the Director General of Police, Gujarat
State, Gandhinagar, seeking appropriate relief, but no action
was taken. Aggrieved thereby, the present petitions have been
preferred.
5. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10310/2019 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
entire complaint against the petitioner is false, concocted, and
baseless. It was further contended that the petitioner has not
committed any offence as alleged and has been falsely
implicated for reasons best known to the complainant.
6.1. It was pointed out that during the course of investigation,
the Investigating Officer has failed to collect any material or
evidence that could even remotely suggest the involvement of
the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. There
is no independent corroboration or recovery to link the
petitioner with the alleged incident.
6.2. It is also argued that IMFL is found from open space or
from the space which is not belonged to the applicant thus,
conscious possession of petitioner of the IMFL is not proved.
6.3. The learned counsel further submitted that the name of
the petitioner has been maliciously inserted in the complaint
without any factual basis, and that no role, overt or otherwise,
has been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR or the
panchnama. It was argued that except for a bald and
unsubstantiated allegation, there exists no incriminating
material to sustain the prosecution.
6.4. In light of the above, it was submitted that continuation
of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would
amount to an abuse of the process of law and cause undue
harassment to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, prays
for appropriate relief from this Hon'ble Court, including
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10310/2019 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
quashing of the impugned proceedings. In support of
contentions, learned advocate for the petitioners has relied on
following judgments :-
(a) Bhojabhai Jeshabhai Kohdiyatar v/s. Stae of Gujarat
[Criminal Misc. Application No.2885 of 2020]
(b) Manubhai Najbhai Dhandhal v/s. State of Gujarat
[ Criminal Misc. Application No.5553 of 2020]
(c) Kishanbhai Damsinghbhai Rathwa v/s. State of Gujarat
[ Criminal Misc. Application No.5803 of 2014]
(d) Jitendrakumar Gopaldas Rijwani v/s. State of Gujarat
[Criminal Misc. Application No.,5532 of 2020]
(e) Pramod Rama Tandel v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc.
Application No.17019 of 2018]
(f) Pavansingh s/o. Bhakharsingh Rathod v/s. State of
Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.5265 of 2020]
(g) Zala Shatrushal Yasinh Ramubha v/s. State of Gujarat
[Criminal Misc. Application No.11910 of 2019]
7. Per contra, the learned APP has opposed the present
application and submitted that the name of the petitioner has
been disclosed during the course of investigation based on the
statement of a co-accused. It is further submitted that the
investigation is at a nascent stage, and therefore, it would not
be appropriate for this Hon'ble Court to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure at this juncture. The learned APP also submitted that
as many as 17 cases under the Prohibition Act and 5 cases
under the Indian Penal Code have been registered against the
petitioner, thereby indicating his criminal antecedents.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10310/2019 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
8. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, what
could be noticed that on the basis of statement of co-accused,
name of the petitioners is disclosed in the commission of
offence. Co-ordinate Bench has quashed the FIR against co-
accused, however, there cannot be any parity in the quashing
matter in exercise of powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Each
case rest on different facts and facts of one accused cannot be
compared with facts of other accused, similarly, role of each
accused in alleged offence cannot be compared more
particularly no further investigation in the offence is carried
and quashment of FIR is sought at initial stage.
8.1. So far as second contention of the petitioner that no
material is available to prosecute present petitioner except
statement of co-accused is concerned, 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. Statement
of co-accused recorded during investigation is relevant under
section 10 of the Evidence Act.
8.2. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Bheravsinh Mansinh Rajput v. State of Gujarat reported
in 2025 LawSuit(Guj) 580 has observed thus:-
"11. Further, in the case of Mohammed Fasrin vs. State
Rep. By the Intelligence Officer rendered in Criminal Misc.
Application No.296 of 2014, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed as under:
".......The confessions of a co-accused gives a clue to
the investigating authorities as to how to investigate
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10310/2019 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
the matter and against whom to investigate the
matter. Thereafter, it is for the investigating officers
to collect evidence against the said person who has
been named by the co-accused....."
In view of the above, during the investigation, statement
of co-accused provides a clue for investigation and to
unearth the truth, statement of co-accused is required.
Even considering the fact that as the applicant is involved
such illegal activities in past also, though he has been
given the benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence in three
criminal cases lodged against the applicant, he has not
been honorably acquitted. Even thereafter, the present
applicant has involved himself in the present offence again.
"
8.3. At the outset, if the role of the accused is examined from
the available record, it appears that the petitioner is arrayed
either as the supplier of liquor or as a person to whom the
liquor was to be supplied. Admittedly, the role of the petitioner
surfaced during the statement of other accused who have
been arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR. However,
the petitioner has approached this Court at the very inception
of the investigation seeking quashing of the FIR. The
investigation in the said FIR has been stayed pursuant to an
interim order. It is true that the statement of a co-accused is
not admissible in evidence, but it remains relevant for the
purpose of investigation. The learned advocate for the
petitioner, placing reliance on various judgments, has argued
that since the statement of a co-accused is inadmissible in
evidence, the FIR is liable to be quashed. At first blush, the
argument appears attractive; however, the stage for deciding
the admissibility of such evidence arises only after the filing of
the charge sheet, framing of charge, and during the course of
trial. At the preliminary stage of registration of the FIR and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10310/2019 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
commencement of investigation based on the statement of a
co-accused, the issue of admissibility does not arise.
8.4. 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 :-
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10310/2019 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10310/2019 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10310/2019 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10310/2019 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
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.
8.5. Recently, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Mansing Shakarlal (Damor) Mina v/s. State of Gujarat
[2024(0) 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10310/2019 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10310/2019 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10310/2019 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10310/2019 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
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."
8.6. At initial stage, whether 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10310/2019 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
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."
8.7. Another contention raised by the learned advocate for
the petitioner is that the place from which the Indian Made
Foreign Liquor was seized during the raid does not belong to
the petitioner or is an open space, and therefore, the petitioner
cannot be said to be in conscious possession of the liquor
found during the raid. It is thus submitted that the petitioner
cannot be linked to the FIR. However, such a contention is
devoid of merit. Whether the premises from where the Indian
Made Foreign Liquor was seized belong to the petitioner, and
whether he was in conscious possession thereof, are matters
that fall within the domain of investigation to be conducted by
the Investigating Officer. If incriminating evidence is unearthed
during the course of investigation, the same would be subject
to judicial scrutiny during the trial. These aspects cannot be
adjudicated at the threshold while considering a petition under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8.8. The proceedings in the matter have been initiated on the
basis of certain information received during investigation. The
contention that the individual concerned was not present at
the scene of the incident or involved in its commission is a
matter that requires factual verification. At this preliminary
stage, such a plea cannot form the sole basis for invoking
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the
proceedings. The investigating agency is entitled to examine
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10310/2019 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
all relevant aspects, and if any credible material emerges
during investigation to support the claim of non-involvement,
appropriate steps may be taken in accordance with law.
However, at this stage, it would be premature to terminate the
proceedings.
8.9. So far as judgments relied by learned advocate for the
petitioner 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.
9. In view of above, the petitions are DISMISSED. Interim
relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated.
10. 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)
MANISH MISHRA
