Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C. DOSHI, J.
Dashrathbhai Mangaji Marvadi - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing & Set Aside Fir/Order) No. 5490 of 2014, Special Criminal Application No. 2114 of 2014
Decided On : 06-03-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Prohibition Act - Sections 66(b), 65(A), (E), 116
(B), and 81 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners sought to quash FIR based on co-accused's statement, deemed inadmissible - Court held that investigation should proceed based on such statements at initial stage - Dismissed petitions as premature. (Paras 1, 7, 12, 15)
(B) Evidence Act - Section 10 - Co-accused statements as clues for investigation - Court emphasized that statements of co-accused can guide further investigation, even if inadmissible at trial stage. (Paras 8, 9, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused in an FIR for liquor-related offences based on statements from co-accused during an ongoing investigation. (Paras 1, 3.1)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the investigation was at an initial stage and that the statements of co-accused could be relevant for further investigation. (Paras 7, 12)
Issues: Whether the FIR could be quashed solely based on the inadmissibility of co-accused statements at the initial stage of investigation. (Paras 6, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the statements of co-accused, while inadmissible at trial, are relevant for guiding investigations and should not halt proceedings at the initial stage. (Paras 9, 13)
Result: Petitions dismissed.
ORDER :
J. C. DOSHI, J.
1. By way of this applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being I-C.R.No.5239 of 2014 and registered with Meganinagar Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences under Sections 66(b), 65(A),(E), 116(B) and 81 of the Prohibition Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The facts narrated in the petition are stated as under:
3.1 On 31.03.2014, on the basis of secret information raid was carried out and from overhead tank situated on block no.9 of slum quarters, stock of 180 bottles on Indian made foreign liquor and 48 tins of beer were found. Hence, FIR is filed. In FIR, the petitioners are shown as wanted accused.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are falsely involved in the offence on the basis of statement of co-accused recorded during investigation. It is submitted that that during investigation of FIR, arrested accused has given name of present petitioner and thus, name of the petitioner has been arraigned in the FIR. It is submitted that statement of co-accused is inadmissible in evidence and therefore, on such inadmissible evidence, putting accused for trial would be futile exercise and therefore, while relying on following judgments, it is submitted to quash the proceedings.
(a) Vijaybhai Dhuralal Soni v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.5483 and 5596 of 2000]
(b) Dalpatsinh Shersingh v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.7167 of 2000]
(c) Dhansukhbhai Baalwantrai Modi v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.9542 of 2004]
(d) Girish H Trivedi v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.5776 of 2004]
(e) Shri Ishwarbhai Becharbhai Ahir v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.14106 of 2006]
(f) Kailash Govindram Rathi v/s. State of Gujarat [2008 (1) GLR 750].
(g) Dalpatsinh @ DS Shersinh Rathod v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.4449 of 2008]
(h) Darshrathbhai Mahaji Marvadi v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.15155 of 2013]
(i) Nareshbhai Devchansbhai Patel v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.2276 of 2014]
(j) Dilipsinh Kishorbhai Rathod v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.17096 of 2015].
(k) Santoshsinh Narendrasinh Chauhan v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.489 of 2015]
(l) Darshrathbhai Mangaji Marvadi v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc.Application No.8528 of 2017]
(m) Chaudhari Ranjitbhai Harishingbhai v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.12622 of 2020]
6. Per contra, learned APP for respondent State submitted that FIR is at initial stage and during investigation of FIR, accused was arrested, in his statement, he has given name of petitioners as supplier of liquor or liquor to be supplied to him. In this circumstances, statement of co-accused is relevant in proceeding further in investigation of offence. Therefore, he submits that FIR at this stage should not be quashed and investigating officer should be permitted to collect further evidence on record.
6.1. Upon above submissions, it is submitted to dismiss the petition.
7. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and perusing record, it is undisputed that name of the petitioner is revealed from the statement of co-accused who has been arrested by IO in regard to investigation of aforesaid FIR. It is undisputed that statement of co-accused is not admissible in evidence. It is required to be appreciated that investigation was at initial stage and it was to be initiated to proceed further on the basis of statement of co-accused. Allegations and averments made in the complaint since found supported from statement of co-accused, FIR cannot be quashed even before investigation is carried. It is to be noted that the petitioners have approached this Court at initial stage of investigation and police officers
Statements of co-accused, while inadmissible at trial, can guide initial investigations and do not warrant quashing of FIRs at the preliminary stage.
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, while inadmissible at trial, are relevant for guiding initial investigations, and FIRs cannot be quashed solely on this basis.
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.
Statements of co-accused can be used as clues for investigation; quashing FIR at initial stage is not permissible.
Statements of co-accused can guide investigations and cannot be dismissed at the pre-trial stage; FIRs should not be quashed unless no cognizable offence is disclosed.
Statements of co-accused are relevant for investigation and do not warrant quashing of FIR at the initial stage; admissibility is determined later.
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 can guide investigations but are not sufficient for quashing an FIR at the initial stage of proceedings.
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
