The High Court cannot assess the reliability of evidence or conduct a mini trial when considering an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ORDER :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being I-C.R.No.5076 of 2014 registered with Gomtipur 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:

2.1 On 16.03.2014, Gomtipur Police Station had received secret information that near Gomtipur Rakhail Road, near Green Hotel, one Swaraj Mazda No.GJ-1-DT-1213 was lying abandoned, wherein, illegal foreign liquor was found. Thus, FIR was filed. During interrogation of one Vikramshinh who was arrested, had given name of the petitioner. Thus on the basis of his statement, name of present petitioner is disclosed.

3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner after referring to charge sheet paper on record would submit that in the present case, for involvement of petitioner in the alleged offence, no statement of independent witness is recorded. It is submitted that statement of police constable is recorded to implicate the petitioner in line of accused. He would submit that police constable are interested witness and therefore, their statement cannot be believed to secure conviction of the petitioner. Mainly on this submission, learned advocate Mr.Kapadia submitted to quash the impugned FIR and allow the petition.

5. On the other hand, learned APP taking this Court through charge-sheet papers submitted that name of the petitioner is stated in the FIR and it is alleged that Indian made foreign liquor which was seized from Swaraj Mazda belongs to the petitioner and along with other two persons, they have brought Indian made foreign liquor worth Rs.5,78,400/- and it was found from the said car. It is submitted that the petitioner ran away from the spot. Learned APP would submit that statement of four witnesses are recorded which demonstrate that the petitioner is involved in the offence. It is submitted that veracity of charge- sheet cannot be questioned at this stage, if cognizable offence is disclosed from FIR and charge-sheet. It is submitted that the Court should be slow in quashing FIR and charge-sheet. Therefore, it is submitted to dismiss the petition.

6. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and perusal of record, tenor of petition indicates that FIR was filed on the ground that name of the petitioner is disclosed from the statement of co-accused viz. Mr.Vikramsinh. On the contrary, charge-sheet papers discloses role of the petitioner. It starts from FIR till filing of charge-sheet. It is also revealed from charge- sheet papers that offence was done near the spot of incident. Charge-sheet papers also discloses statement of four witnesses which shows involvement of the petitioner in commission of offence. Learned advocate Mr.Kapadia for the petitioner argued that witnesses are police constable, they are interested witness and their statement cannot be believed. It is settled principle of law that Court at the time of deciding application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or statement of witness are admissible or not. Equally the Court cannot quash the FIR on the ground that witnesses are interested witnesses, it would be unjustifiable to appreciate evidence at the time of deciding application under section 482 of Cr.P.C.. Undoubtedly, power of the Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. are wide but at the same time it has to be exercised with care and caution. At this stage, I may refer to judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v/s. Gourishetty Mahesh [2010 (11) SCC 226]. In para 11 and 12, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :-

“11) In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Bajjoori Kanthaiah and Another, (2009) 1 SCC 114, again when the Andhra Pra