Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravikant @Bablu Dangi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29588
1 MCRC-50915-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 18th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50915 of 2025
RAVIKANT @BABLU DANGI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shashwat Rao - Advocate for the petitioner .
Ms. Padam Shri Agarwal - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
preferred by petitioner for quashment of charge sheet arising out FIR bearing
crime No.60/2025 for the offence under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act,
1915 registered at Police Station Dheerpura, District Datia and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
According to case of prosecution, on 05.07.2025, the Station House
Officer, P.S. Dheerpura, received secret information that Ravi s/o Late
Babulal Dangi, resident of Village Sindhwari, was storing a large quantity of
illicit country-made liquor in a room of his house and was supplying it to
nearby villages. Acting on the information, the police team reached the spot
and allegedly saw one person carrying a liquor carton who, upon seeing the
police, threw the carton and fled. Panch witness Captain Singh Dangi is said
to have identified the fleeing person as Ravi. The police claim that from the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29588
2 MCRC-50915-2025
room belonging to Ravi, they recovered 104 cartons (5200 quarters) of plain
country-made liquor, 17 plastic sacks containing 1700 quarters, and 1 sack
containing 100 quarters of red masala liquor, totalling 1280 liters, valued at
approximately ₹5,30,000. One mobile phone was also seized. The mother of
Ravi allegedly stated that the room belonged to her son. On this basis, the
police registered an offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act and
initiated investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet
has been filed before competent Court. Upon completion of investigation, a
final investigation report/charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court,
and Regular Criminal Trial No. 448/2025 (State of M.P. vs. Ravi @
Ravikant Dangi & Ors.) is presently pending adjudication before the learned
Trial Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in this matter. His name is neither mentioned
in the secret information nor in the FIR. During the investigation, not a
single piece of evidence has been produced by the prosecution, which shows
the guilt or involvement of the petitioner in the instant matter. Neither any
liquor was recovered from the possession of present petitioner and nor any
vehicle or property belonged to the present petitioner. The petitioner has
been implicated only on the basis of memorandum of the co-accused Ravi @
Ravikant Dangi S/o Babulal Dangi recorded under Section 23(2) of BSA, but
in absence of any recovery, it is not to be considered as admissible piece of
evidence. No prima facie case is made out against the present applicant.
Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29588
3 MCRC-50915-2025
impugned chargesheet, FIR bearing Crime No.60/2025 and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed.
In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the
judgments of Hon'ble Privy Council in a landmark Judgment of Pulukuri
Kottayya Vs. Emperor AIR 1947 P.C. 67 and Co-ordinate bench of this
Court in the case Narendra Kumar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh order
dated 15.03.2019 passed in CRR No.341/2019, Bhanwar Singh Vs. The State
of Madhya Pradesh order dated 20.01.2023 in MCRC No.17232/2022, Rahul
@ Abhishek Rathore Vs. The State of M.P. order dated 05.09.2022 in
MCRC No.35272/2021 and Deepak Patil Vs. The State of M.P. order dated
25.01.2024 passed in MCRC No.25743/2023.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes
the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that there is prima facie
evidence available on record against the petitioner and no case is made out
for any interference.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the case diary. It
is evident that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot. No liquor,
vehicle, or property was seized from his possession. No independent witness
or material has been collected to show his involvement in storage,
transportation, possession, or ownership of the seized liquor. The entire case
of the prosecution against the petitioner rests only on the disclosure
memorandum of the co-accused. The legal position is settled beyond cavil
that a confession to police is wholly inadmissible and only that portion of
information which leads to discovery of a fact is admissible under Section 27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29588
4 MCRC-50915-2025
of the Evidence Act. In Pulukuri Kottaya ( supra), the Privy Council
authoritatively clarified that such disclosure cannot be used to implicate a co-
accused unless it leads to discovery. In Haricharan Kurmi ( supra), the Apex
Court has held that a co-accused's confession is not substantive evidence and
cannot be the sole basis to proceed against another accused. In the present
case, no discovery or recovery has been made from the petitioner pursuant to
any such disclosure, and therefore the memorandum cannot legally connect
him with the offence.
The categories enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported
in 1992-Supp (1) SCC 335 permit quashment where the allegations do not
constitute any offence or where the prosecution is manifestly attended with
mala fides or where the continuation of the proceedings would amount to
abuse of the process of the court. On the material collected by the
investigating agency, there is no admissible evidence to establish the
involvement of the petitioner. To compel him to face a full-fledged criminal
trial in such circumstances would be an exercise in futility and would result
in unnecessary harassment.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and the settled principles of
law, this Court finds that no offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise
Act is made out against the petitioner. The prosecution is based entirely on
an inadmissible disclosure and lacks any corroborative material.
Consequently, the petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is
allowed. The FIR registered at Crime No.60/2025 at Police Station
Dheerpura, District Datia, along with the charge-sheet and all consequential
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29588
5 MCRC-50915-2025
proceedings in Regular Criminal Trial No.448/2025, is hereby quashed so far
as it relates to the present petitioner. The petitioner stands discharged from
the aforesaid offence.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
