Co-accused statements are relevant for investigation but inadmissible as evidence; FIR cannot be quashed at the initial stage based solely on such statements.

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.137 of 2019 registered with DCB Police Station, Rajkot for the offences under Sections 65(E), 116(B), 81 and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Facts of the case are as under :-

2.1. On 25/12/2019, PSI, DCB Police Station, Rajkot received a secret information to the effect that accused are illegally carrying the liquor in the truck and thereby doing illegal business of liquor. 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 petitioner is disclosed. Total muddamal of Rs.29,77,200/- including the vehicles and mobile phone came to be seized by the police authority. 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. 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]

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 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.

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 the matter. Statement of co-accused recorded during investigation is relevant under section 10 of the Evidence Act.

8. In the case of Jayendra Saraswati v/s. State [AIR 2005 SC 716], the Hon’b