Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
Mansing Shankarlal (Damor) Mina - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing & Set Aside Fir/Order) No. 13199 of 2019 With Criminal Misc. Application No. 13217, 13237, 13235, 13212, 13202, 13219 of 2019
Decided On : 15-02-2024
Section 482 - Quashing of FIRs - Prohibition Act - Sections 65(a)(e), 81, 83, 98(2) and 116(b) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the admissibility of the statement of co-accused as a clue for investigation and the legal position regarding quashing of FIRs based solely on the statement of co-accused. The judgment referenced the Prohibition Act and relevant sections 65(a)(e), 81, 83, 98(2), and 116(b) along with interpretations from the Supreme Court and the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quash of various FIRs registered against him under the Prohibition Act, contending that he was implicated solely based on the statement of the co-accused, which he argued was inadmissible as evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the statement of the co-accused can be considered as a clue for investigation and does not warrant quashing of the FIRs at the initial stage. It emphasized that if evidence is found during the investigation, the petitioner would be liable for prosecution, and if no material is found, the proceedings would be dropped.
Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to quash the FIRs solely based on the statement of the co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal position established by the Supreme Court and held that the statement of the co-accused can be considered as a clue for investigation, and quashing of FIRs at the initial stage is not warranted.
Final Decision: The applications for quashing the FIRs were dismissed, and the court discharged the rule. The petitioner was given the liberty to file a fresh application if the charge-sheet is filed solely based on the statement of the co-accused.
JUDGMENT :
1. In this batch petitions filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the petitioner sought quash of various FIRs registered against him in various police stations for the offences punishable under Sections 65(a)(e), 81, 83, 98(2) and 116(b) of the Prohibition Act. Since all these petitions are filed by the same petitioner, these petitions are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State.
3. The petitioner is one of the accused in all the FIRs that were registered in this batch of petitions. As per the prosecution version, the other accused were found to be in illegal possession of various types of liquor unauthorizedly and they have been transporting the said liquor illegally, contrary to the provisions of the Prohibition Act. At that time they were apprehended by the police and the contraband was seized from their possession and they were taken into custody and were interrogated by the police and the aforesaid crimes were registered against them. At the time of interrogating the said arrested accused, it is stated that they have disclosed the name of the petitioner herein also as the person who has supplied the said liquor to them. Therefore, on the basis of the said statement of the co-accused, the petitioner is also shown as an accused in all the above crimes. Taking a clue from the said statement of the co- accused, the Investigating Officers have been investigating the said cases regarding the complicity of the petitioner in commission of the said offences and the role played by him the commission of the said offences punishable under the Prohibition Act. The investigation in the said cases is pending.
4. While so, the petitioner sought quash of all the said FIRs and the criminal proceedings initiated thereon against him on the sole ground that he was implicated as an accused in the above crimes solely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused and the said statement of the co-accused is not admissible in evidence and he cannot be prosecuted for the said offences on the basis of the said statement of the co-accused. Therefore, on the said sole ground, he sought quash of the FIRs registered against him.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Sanjay Keshavbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2019 (0) AIJEL-HC 240931, wherein, it is held that when there is only the statement of co-accused and except such statement of co-accused there is no other material or evidence available to indicate that the applicant has committed any such offence or abetted commission of offence by the other co-accused in any other manner, that the FIR registered against him and the consequential criminal proceedings initiated thereon are to be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently contends that the statement of co-accused given during the course of interrogation serves as a clue to the Investigating Officer regarding complicity of the petitioner in commission of the said offence and on the basis of the said clue that is secured during the course of investigation that the Investigating Officer is perfectly justified in registering the FIR against him and to investigate the case to find out the role played by the petitioner in perpetrating the said offence and to find out his complicity in commission of the said offence and if ultimately the Investigating Officer could collect evidence on the basis of the said clue got to him from the statement of co-accused, that a Charge-sheet would be filed against him with the said evidence and she would vehemently contend that the FIRs cannot be quashed at this stage interdicting the investigation. She would also contend that this is not a stage where the evidence is to be weighed and appreciated and the investig
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the statement of the co-accused can be considered as a clue for investigation, and quashing of FIRs at the initial stage is not warranted.
Statement of co-accused is relevant under Section 10 of Evidence Act for the purpose of carrying out further investigation – At initial stage of registration of FIR and starting of investigation on t....
Statements of co-accused are relevant for investigation but not admissible as evidence; FIRs cannot be quashed at the initial stage based solely on such statements.
Co-accused statements are relevant for investigation but inadmissible as evidence; FIR cannot be quashed at the initial stage based solely on such statements.
Statements of co-accused are relevant for investigation and do not warrant quashing of FIR at the initial stage; admissibility is determined later.
Statements of co-accused, while inadmissible at trial, are relevant for guiding initial investigations, and FIRs cannot be quashed solely on this basis.
Statements of co-accused, while inadmissible at trial, can guide initial investigations and do not warrant quashing of FIRs at the preliminary stage.
Statements of co-accused can be used as clues for investigation; quashing FIR at initial stage is not permissible.
Statements of co-accused can be used as clues for investigation; FIRs cannot be quashed solely based on such statements at the initial stage.
Statements of co-accused can be used as clues for investigation; FIR cannot be quashed at the initial stage without material evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
