The court's inherent power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hardik Dave for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent – State.

2. By way of this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed to quash the FIR being C.R.No.III-552 of 2013 registered with Umra Police Station for the offence under sections 66(1)B, 65EA, 116B, 81, 99 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

3. It is alleged that the petitioner is owner of Xylo Car No.GJ- 5-CR-7111. It is further alleged that his sister Dimple and brother in law of the petitioner were caught red handed in transporting Indian made foreign liquor in the said Car. Upon such allegations, FIR came to be registered against the petitioner as well as sister and brother in law of the petitioner.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Dave for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not played any role in commission of offence. He would submit that bare face of FIR, no offence is made out. He would further submit that main accused – Dimple and her husband Anilbhai are acquitted by the concerned Court in Criminal Case No.11598 of 2014. He would further submit that in this circumstances, if allowing petitioner to face trial, which could roll out on completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet against him would be futile exercise. He therefore, submits to allow this petition.

5. Learned APP objected the arguments at his vehemence and submits that role of 3 accused are different. The petitioner has facilitated 2 other co-accused in transporting Indian made foreign liquor by providing car knowing fully well that they are transporting Indian made foreign liquor. In this circumstances, let there be trial against the petitioner. He would submit that by allowing this petition, the prosecution case should not be shattered at threshold. This submission are made to reject the petition.

6. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides, at the outset it is noted that trial against the main accused are completed. Learned JMFC has recorded clear acquittal in favour of co-accused believing that contents of the FIR which has culminated into charge sheet is not correct and not proving any offence. Perusing the FIR, it appears that against present petitioner allegation of providing car to transport Indian made foreign liquor is made. Looking to the role alleged to have been played by the petitioner in connection the FIR, it is much less than the alleged role played by other co-accused. Since jurisdictional Court did not find substance in the allegations made by the prosecution and acquitted other two co-accused, allowing trial against the present petitioner would be futile exercise.

7. The circumstances spells that parameters stated in the judgment in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 are attracted. While interpreting section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, principally, inherent power of this Court, the Hon’ble Apex Court made following observations:-

“In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Ch.XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which we have extracted and reproduced above, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima fa