Statements of co-accused can be used as clues for investigation; FIR cannot be quashed at the initial stage without material evidence.

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 No.C.R.No.III-744 of 2019 registered with Valiya Police Station, Bharuch for the offences under Sections 65(a)(e) and 81 of the Prohibition Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Facts of the case are as under :-

2.1. On 28.11.2019, A.H.C. Bhupendrabhai Rameshbhai of Valiya Police Station along with other police personnel getting secret information and came to know that accused persons bought English liquor and hide the same in village Kondh. They carried out raid at the spot but they could not found the accused persons present there. But whey they carried out search at the spot, they found various bottles of liquor. Hence, FIR is lodged.

3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that it is stated in the complaint that when the raid was carried out, no one was present there. It is also submitted that the muddamal was found at public place, where anyone can kept the prohibited liquor. He would submit that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and petitioner had not made any attempt or abated for buying or selling the prohibited muddamal. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is falsely involved in the offence. It is submitted that there is no evidence or material collected by Investigating Officer which indicate that the petitioner is directly or indirectly involved in the offence.

5. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application and submitted that the police personnel get secret information wherein name of the petitioner was reflected and when the raid was carried out, the muddamal was found. 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 secret information, name of the petitioner is disclosed in the commission of offence. Each case rest on different facts and facts of one accused cannot be compared with facts of other accused, similarly, role of each accused in alleged offence cannot be compared more particularly no further investigation in the offence is carried and quashment of FIR is sought at initial stage.

7. So far as second contention of the petitioners that no material is available to prosecute present petitioner is concerned, what could be noticed that quashing petition is filed at the stage of filing of FIR and investigation is yet to be progressed in the matter.

8. In the case of Jayendra Saraswati v/s. State [AIR 2005 SC 716], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if prima facie evidence of conspiracy exists, evidence of statement made by any of the conspiratory in furtherance of common object is admissible so far as investigation is concerned.

9. At the outset, if role of the accused could be seen from available record that petitioner is arrayed either as supplier of liqour or liquor was to be supplied to them. However, the petitioner approached this Court at initial stage of investigation for quashing of FIR. Investigation in FIR is stayed by interim order. At first blush argument looks attractive but stage of deciding admissibility of evidence comes after filing charge sheet; framing of charge and during recording of evidence. At the initial stage of registration of FIR and starting of investigation on the basis of statement of co-accused issue of admissibility would not arise.

10. With profit, I may refer to observation in the case of Kailash Govindram Rathi Versus State Of Gujarat [2008 (1) GLR 750], this Court has held in para 6,8,9 and 10 as under :-

“6. At the outset it is required to be noted that against all the respective applicants, the complainants are filed before the different Police Stations for the offences puni