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.

ORDER :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. By way of this applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being Prohibition C.R.No.11214046201726 of 2020 registered with Palsana Police Station for the offences under Sections 65(E), 81, 98(2) and 116(b) of the Prohibition Act and under Section 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Facts of the case are as under :-

2.1. The FIR is registered by Mr. C.M.Gadhvi Police Sub Inspector, Palsana Police Station, Surat Rural on 30/10/2020 at 18:00. It is alleged in the FIR that since it was Id-Milad festival on 30/10/2020 he was on duty along with other police officials and they were patrolling in government as well as private vehicles, it is further stated that when they had reached near Dastan Railway Crossing a Tempo Vehicle overtook the police vehicle on very high speed, therefore the complainant along with other police officials chased down the tempo vehicle, the tempo vehicle was bearing registration number MH-48-AG-5369 and two persons were sitting in the vehicle, it is alleged that upon inquiring from the driver about his identification, he said that his name was Bhavesh Ganeshdas Hamerdas Vaishnav and the name of the cleaner was Mukeshbhai Pannadas Kishandas Vaishnav and both of them belonged to Rajasthan; it is further alleged that upon inquiring they told that the tempo is carrying Chemical and also gave a Bilti which read SMR SHREE MAHADEV ROADLINES H.O: GULAB BAG, RING ROAD INDORE 452010 Serial No. 1314. It is alleged that the complainant asked both the accused Bhavesh Vaishnav and Mukesh Vaishnav to open the Tempo and show the chemical, that upon opening the tempo the complainant saw that it was filled with boxes of Liquor, therefore, the complainant called the following two panchas for the purpose of carrying out the Panchnama and they are (1). Anilbhai Chhaganbhai Solanki and (2). Akshaybhai Ishwarbhai Kanthariya, that since because of the location of the tempo there was difficulty in carrying out the Panchnama the complainant brought to the tempo alongwith the accused to Police Station and found the liquor as described in the FIR. Hence, FIR is lodged.

3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioners 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 applicant was falsely implicated in the offence and he was not found from the place of incident and thus the involvement of the accused is doubtful. It is submitted that applicant was doing labour work and merely on the basis of the statement of co-accused he came to be implicated in the offence in question. It is submitted that there is no evidence or material collected by Investigating Officer which indicate that the petitioners are directly or indirectly involved in the offence. It is submitted that petitioner has not committed any offence under the IPC as alleged as the petitioner was not the maker of the alleged document or petitioner is aware about any such document. It is therefore submitted to allow this petition and to quash the FIR against the petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present applications and submitted that statement has been given by co- accused during investigation and on the basis of statement of co- accused, name of the petitioners are disclosed in the offence. It is submitted that investigation is at nascent stage and therefore, it is submitted that this Court may not exercise jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, what could be noticed that on the basis of statement of co-accused, name of the petitioners is disclosed in the commission of offence. Co- ordinate Bench has quashed the FIR against co-accused, however, there cannot be any parity in the quashing matter in exe