Statements of co-accused can be used as clues for investigation; quashing FIR at initial stage is not permissible.

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 Prohibition C.R.No.93 of 2007 registered with Botad Police Station, Bhavnagar for the offences under Sections 65(A)(E), 66(b), 81, 98(c) and 116B of the Prohibition Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Facts of the case are as under :-

2.1. On 05.07.2007, Mr.H.J.Chaudhary, I/c. Police Inspector of Botad Police Station along with other police constable getting secret information and came to know that prohibited liquor is being transported on motorcycle on Sarangpur road and when they reached at the place, they found two persons and two vehicles and during search, they found liquor in it. The vehicles were intercepted by police personal and raid was carried and accused were arrested with liqour and on the basis of his statement, name of present petitioner is disclosed. 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 prohibited liquor is transported on Sarangpur road and after receiving the said information, raid was carried out and two vehicles and two persons were found with liquor and complaint was lodged. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is falsely involved in the offence on the basis of statement of co-accused recorded during investigation. 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. It is also submitted that Criminal Case No.511 of 2007 was filed against both the accused and both accused plead guilty in Lok Adalat vide order dated 03.08.2008 and 02.10.2008 for punishment. In support of contentions, learned advocate for the petitioners has relied on following judgments :-

(a) Bhojabhai Jeshabhai Kohdiyatar v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.2885 of 2020]

(b) Manubhai Najbhai Dhandhal v/s. State of Gujarat [ Criminal Misc. Application No.5553 of 2020]

(c) Kishanbhai Damsinghbhai Rathwa v/s. State of Gujarat [ Criminal Misc. Application No.5803 of 2014]

(d) Jitendrakumar Gopaldas Rijwani v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.,5532 of 2020]

(e) Pramod Rama Tandel v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.17019 of 2018]

(f) Pavansingh s/o. Bhakharsingh Rathod v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.5265 of 2020]

(g) Zala Shatrushal Yasinh Ramubha v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.11910 of 2019]

5. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application and submitted that statement has been given by co- accused during investigation and on the basis of statement of co- accused, name of the petitioner is 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 petitioner is disclosed in the commission of offence. Criminal Case No.511 of 2007 was filed against both the accused and both accused plead guilty in Lok Adalat vide order dated 03.08.2008 and 02.10.2008 for punishment. 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 petitioners except statement of co-accused 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