Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C. DOSHI, J.
Arif Amirmiya Pirjada - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and Another - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing & Set Aside Fir/Order) No. 18765 of 2019, Criminal Misc. Application No. 21439 of 2019
Decided On : 05-03-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Prohibition Act - Sections 65(E), 98(2), 81, 83 - Applications to quash FIR for liquor-related offences - Petitioners claimed false involvement based on co-accused statements - Court held that statements of co-accused are relevant for investigation but not admissible as evidence - Each case must be evaluated on its own facts, and quashing at the initial stage is not warranted. (Paras 3, 7, 10, 14)
(B) Quashing of FIR - Jurisdiction under Section 482 - Courts should not interfere with investigations unless no cognizable offence is disclosed - The power to quash should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The FIR was lodged based on a police raid that intercepted a truck carrying illegal liquor, leading to the arrest of a cleaner who disclosed the petitioners' names. The petitioners argued their involvement was solely based on co-accused statements without further evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the investigation was at an initial stage, and the statements of co-accused could guide further investigation but could not be the sole basis for quashing the FIR.
Issues: The main issues were whether the FIR could be quashed based solely on co-accused statements and the admissibility of such statements at the investigation stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that statements of co-accused are relevant for investigation but not admissible as evidence, and quashing of FIRs at the initial stage is not appropriate.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
ORDER :
J. C. DOSHI, J.
1. Both the applications are arising from same FIR, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. By way of this applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being No.C.R.No.III-594 of 2019 registered with Khambholiya Police Station, Devbhumi Dwarka for the offences under Sections 65(E), 98(2), 81 and 83 of the Prohibition Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
3. Facts of the case are as under :-
3.1. On 29.08.2019, PSI of Khambholiya Police Station along with other police constable getting secret information and came to know that one Rajasthan passing truck will come from Jamnagar side, and accused nos.2 and 3 are doing illegal business of liquor in partnership. The truck was intercepted by police personal and raid was carried and cleaner was arrested with liqour and on the basis of his statement, name of present petitioners is disclosed. Hence, FIR is lodged.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that it is stated in the complaint that truck loaded with liquor was coming from Rajasthan and after receiving the said information, said truck was intercepted by police and after search, country made liquour was found and complaint was lodged. 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 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 also submitted that case of co-accused having identical role has been quashed by Co-ordinate Bench and therefore, on the ground of parity, present application may also be allowed. In support of contentions, learned advocate for the petitioners has relied on following judgments :-
(a) Bhojabhai Jeshabhai Kohdiyatar v/s. Stae 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]
6. 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.
7. 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 exercise of powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 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.
8. 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
Statements of co-accused are relevant for investigation but not admissible as evidence; FIRs cannot be quashed at the initial stage based solely on such statements.
Statements of co-accused, while inadmissible at trial, can guide initial investigations and do not warrant quashing of FIRs at the preliminary stage.
Statements of co-accused, while inadmissible at trial, are relevant for guiding initial investigations, and FIRs cannot be quashed solely on this basis.
Statements of co-accused can be used as clues for investigation; quashing FIR at initial stage is not permissible.
Statement of co-accused is relevant under Section 10 of Evidence Act for the purpose of carrying out further investigation – At initial stage of registration of FIR and starting of investigation on t....
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.
Statements of co-accused are relevant for investigation and do not warrant quashing of FIR at the initial stage; admissibility is determined later.
Co-accused statements are relevant for investigation but inadmissible as evidence; FIR cannot be quashed at the initial stage based solely on such statements.
Statements of co-accused can guide investigations but are not sufficient for quashing an FIR at the initial stage of proceedings.
Statements of co-accused can be used as clues for investigation; FIR cannot be quashed at the initial stage without material evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
