The court ruled that an FIR cannot be quashed at the initial stage of investigation if it discloses a cognizable offence, emphasizing the relevance of co-accused statements for further investigation.

ORDER :

(J. C. DOSHI, J.)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report bearing C.R. No.III-161 of 2019 registered with Vasad Police Station, Anand for the offences punishable under Sections 65(E), 81, 83, 116(B) and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act and the proceedings initiated in pursuant thereto.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant-respondent No.2 saw three persons standing at one open Farm with one Swift Car and Activa two wheeler as the police got tip regarding the selling of liquor. It is alleged that one ran away with the Swift car after seeing the police and therefore, the police could not see the car number and other two individuals ran away in the farm and therefore, the police could not recognize them. It is alleged in the FIR the police has recovered some liquor and other things with one Activa two wheeler from the scene of offence. It is further stated that the accused persons ran away from the place and the police could not identify them and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the offence.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Dipak B. Patel, submitted that another FIR being C.R. No.III-342 of 2018 dated 25.12.2018 was lodged with the concerned Police Station. The petitioner played an active role in filing of the FIR. Thus upon that, the petitioner was falsely implicated since the cousin brother of petitioner filed a complaint with Anti-Corruption Bureau in connection with such FIR. It is further submitted that because of the above referred FIR given by the cousin of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner is implicated in the present case by the police to take revenge and settle score, which is clear from the fact that the Investigating Officer of both these complaints is the same, and therefore, the impugned complaint is lodged with malafide and ulterior motive to harass the petitioner. It is also submitted that petitioner had been roped in the FIR on the presumptive belief that the present petitioner was involved in selling the Indian made foreign liquor when the raid took place. In addition, it is submitted that there is no material available with the investigating officer to arraign as an accused in the present FIR. It is also submitted that since the petitioner has been involved in the questioned FIR only on the ground of personal vehemency, the FIR on its face value explicit is filed with a malafide intention, since petitioner had preferred an application against a Police Constable Mr. K.D. Chudasma alleging that he is involved in corrupt practice and therefore, keeping with a grudge, the petitioner has been implicated.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that there would be no evidence on record even at the time of framing the charge which would permit the prosecution to put the petitioner in the list of the accused under the above said FIR. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been roped in based of the statement of the co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence and therefore, it is submitted the impugned FIR may be quashed and set aside by allowing the petition.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the application was tendered by the petitioner before the ACB Police Station, Shahibaug was investigated by Mr. K.D. Chudasma. There is no genuine reason for Mr. K.D. Chudasma to keep any grudge qua the present petitioner. The petitioner has been named in the present FIR and infact, the petitioner is involved in multiple offences under the Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that on receipt of the tip, the police had raided the place where the Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) was found and on seeing the police, the accused ran away from the spot. It is submitted that the police had the knowledge of the petitioner being involved even at the time of the raid and since the petitioner has been n