Gullu @ Gwaliya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3219 MP

                                                                                   1
                                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                                                 BEFORE
                                                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
                                                                          ON THE 8th OF MARCH, 2022

                                                                   WRIT PETITION No. 16206 of 2021

                                                       Between:-
                                                       GULLU @ GWALIYA S/O SHRI DULLE MUSALMAN
                                                       GAWAL , AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                                       LABOUR R/O SANJAY NAGAR DEORI, TAHSIL
                                                       DEORI SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                                 .....PETITIONER
                                                       (BY DR. ANUVAD SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE)

                                                       AND

                                              1.       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. S.H.O.
                                                       POLICE STATION DEORI DISTT-SAGAR (MADHYA
                                                       PRADESH)

                                              2.       KIRAN BATKE SUB INSPECTOR SAGAR PS DEORI
                                                       DISTT.SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
                                                       (BY SHRI ALOK AGNIHOTRI, DY. GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                                                    T h is petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                                              following:
                                                                                    ORDER

Petitioner, one of the accused in Criminal Case No.566/2021 registered at Police Station Deori, District Sagar, under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, is before this Court seeking quashment of the FIR on the premise namely that petitioner's complicity is due to the statement of the co-accused Raja Mahobia, a minor, who in his statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act memo has diverse the name of the applicant as a person along with whom he had carried 62 bulk liters of liquor on a motor cycle. Therefore, the said statement cannot be read against the petitioner as there is no recovery from the petitioner. Besides, there is no identification done so far.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State, while reading the FIR statement, submits that on secret information received, a police party had intercepted the

Signature Not Verified motor cycle drove by the petitioner while the co-accused minor was sitting at the SAN

pillion seat carrying the bag with 62 bulk liters of liquor with camouflage Digitally signed by priyanka pithawe mishra Date: 2022.03.09 17:36:56 IST

vegetables. No sooner the police party reached the spot, the petitioner is alleged to

have fled away and only the co-accused Raja Mahobia was arrested. During the investigation he revealed the name of the applicant. Under such circumstances, the petitioner's complicity is prima-facie established. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that its a case of no evidence against the petitioner to the extent of invoking

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashment of the FIR. In any case, the FIR was lodged on 26.07.2021 thereafter, challan has been filed and now at this stage, the prayer for quashment of the FIR cannot be entertained. Investigation is in progress and the possibility of collection of more incriminating material from the petitioner cannot be ruled out. He further submits that law is well settled as regard the scope of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of quashment of FIR. With the aforesaid submission, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard.

Before adverting to rival contentions, it is expedient to observe that law as regards interference with the FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is by now well settled. Unless allegations made in the FIR on their face value do not make out a case of cognizable offence, the FIR cannot be quashed. Reading of the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation do suggest that complicity of the applicant cannot be ruled out at this stage. The contentions advanced in the context of Section 27 of the Evidence Act at this stage, in fact, is misplaced. Nevertheless, the same may be pressed into service during the course of trial at the time evidence is led. Likewise, other objections related to identification and recovery as referred above. In the opinion of this Court, once on the basis of an FIR and the evidence collected, challan since has been filed and the matter is in seisin with the Court of competent jurisdiction, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The principles underlying the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Anant Kumar vs. State of M.P. 1993 CRLJ 1499 and Rajveer Singh vs. State of M.P. and others 2015(1) M.P.H.T. 265 though are Signature Not Verified SAN beyond cavil of doubt but on facts are distinguishable and therefore, is no Digitally signed by priyanka pithawe mishra Date: 2022.03.09 17:36:56 IST assistance to the petitioner.

Thus, the writ petition sans merit. It is accordingly dismissed.

ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE Priya.P

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by priyanka pithawe mishra Date: 2022.03.09 17:36:56 IST