Babu @ Chhatarsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 22242 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Babu @ Chhatarsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 December, 2023

Author: Subodh Abhyankar

Bench: Subodh Abhyankar

                                                              1
                            IN     THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
                                               ON THE 22 nd OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 46789 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           BABU @ CHHATARSINGH S/O NATHULAL, AGED ABOUT
                           32 YEARS, VILLAGE BADODIYAKHAN THANA SANWER
                           DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI NILESH JOSHI - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION CHINTAMAN
                           GANESH, DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI A. S. PARIHAR - P.L./G.A.)

                                 This petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                                 ORDER

T h e present petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by

petitioner, seeking quashment of charge sheet as well as FIR vide Crime No.04 of 2023 registered at P.S. Chintaman Ganesh, District Ujjain for offence under Section 34(2) of MP Excise Act as well as all other consequential criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid crime.

2] In brief, the facts of the case are that on 08.01.2023 from the possession of co-accused Sanjay and Sandeep 81 bulk litres of unauthorized liquor have been seized, who in their memos recorded under Section 27 of the

Evidence Act have named the present petitioner as the person from whom the

aforesaid liquor has been procured.

3] Counsel for the petitioner submits that no recovery was made from the possession of petitioner and he has been implicated only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused persons, namely, Sanjay and Sandeep. There is no other evidence available against the petitioner, except memorandum of co- accused persons recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which is inadmissible in the eyes of law. Hence, he prayed for quashment of aforesaid FIR, charges-sheet as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid crime number. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Gwalior Bench of this High

Court in the case of Rajveer Singh vs. State of MP reported in 2015 Cr.LR.(MP) 134 and in the matter of Suresh Upadhya vs. State of MP and another reported in 2014 Cr.L.(MP) 305.

4] On the other hand, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that 15 other criminal cases are also registered against the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of this petition.

5] Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6] In view of aforesaid and considering the legal position and the fact that no evidence is available against the petitioner, except the disclosure statement of co-accused persons recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

7] As a result, this petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Consequently, charge sheet as well as FIR vide Crime No.04 of 2023 registered at PS Chintaman Ganesh, District Ujjain for offence under Section 34(2) of MP Excise Act as well as all other consequential criminal proceedings arising out of

the aforesaid crime so far as it relates to the present petitioner, are hereby quashed.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Pankaj