Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C. DOSHI, J.
Dharmendra @ Dhamo Jethalal Baria - Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat and Another - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing & Set Aside Fir/Order) No. 19595 of 2021
Decided On : 04-04-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Prohibition Act - Sections 65(E), 81, 83, 98(2), 99 - Quashing of FIR - Applicant sought to quash FIR for alleged illicit liquor transport, claiming license in Diu and absence at the scene - Court held that statements of co-accused are relevant for investigation, and quashing at this stage is premature. (Paras 1, 3, 12, 13)
(B) Evidence Act - Section 10 - Co-accused statements - Statements of co-accused can serve as clues for investigation, and their admissibility is determined at trial, not at the FIR stage. (Paras 9, 10)
(C) Judicial precedent - The court referenced various judgments to establish that FIRs cannot be quashed solely based on co-accused statements at the investigation stage. (Paras 11, 14)
Facts of the case:
The FIR was lodged for transporting illicit liquor, implicating the applicant based on co-accused statements. The applicant claimed a valid liquor license in Diu and argued lack of evidence against him.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and that the investigation should proceed.
Issues: Whether the FIR could be quashed based solely on co-accused statements and the applicant's claim of a valid liquor license.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that co-accused statements are relevant for investigation, and the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage as it may lead to premature interference in the investigation.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(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 No.C.R.No.11186008210185 of 2021 registered with Una Police Station, Gir Somnath for the offences under Sections 65(E), 81, 83, 98(2), 99 of the Prohibition Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Facts of the case are as under :-
2.1 That the First Information Report is lodged by the respondent no. 2 on 09.02.2021 for the incident which is alleged to have occurred on the same day. The first informant and the other police personnel were on patrolling duty, at that time, Mr. P.P. Bambhaniya the Police Head Constable received a secret information that one silver coloured Innova car bearing registration no. GJ-06-BL-2034 would come from Ghoghla towards Una and the said car is loaded with Indian made foreign liquor. It is alleged that on receiving the said information the first informant along with the other police personnel were waiting for the said car near Delvada Petrol pump. It is alleged that as soon as the said vehicle reached Delvada Petrol pump, the same was stopped and on checking the said car from backside of the trunk of the car, a secret partition was made, wherein, Indian made foreign liquor bottles were hidden. It is alleged that on inquiring from the persons who were seated in the car, one of them was Kunalpari Dhirupari Goswami Bavaji and other person was Vanraj Bhikhabhai Odedara. It is alleged that on inquiring about the pass permit, the aforesaid persons refused to have any pass permit for keeping the illicit liquor with them. It is alleged that total 417 bottles worth Rs. 1,89,640/- were found. It is alleged that on further inquiry from the aforesaid two persons they have informed that the said liquor bottles were loaded from Jai Ambe Bar of Dharmendra @Dhamo and the same was to be delivered to one Divyesh @ D.K. Odedara at Junagadh. It is alleged that the accused no. 1 and 2 were caught with the muddamaal and it is alleged that the accused no. 3 had loaded the said liquor bottles in the car of the accused nos. 1 and 2 and the same was to be delivered to the accused no. 4 and the accused in connivance with each other have hatched a conspiracy and have committed the alleged offence. Hence, FIR was lodged.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Mangukia for the petitioner seeks quashment of FIR on two grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that the petitioner is resident of Union territory of Diu and he has license to sell liquor in Diu. It is argued that since the petitioner was holding license to sell liquour, he cannot be prosecuted under the prohibition act applicable to State of Gujarat. Secondly, it was argued that the petitioner is not found at the spot, where raid was taken place. The petitioner has been arraigned on the ground of statement of co-accused which is inadmissible piece of evidence and therefore, it is submitted that FIR since is baseless and vexatious, be quashed.
3.1. In support of above submission, learned advocate for petitioner has relied on following judgments :-
i) Dharmenda @ Dhamo Jethalal Baria v/s. State of Gujarat [Special Criminal Application No.11553 of 2021].
ii) Jignesh @ Jigo Jado Jagdishbhai Jarivala v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.11508 of 2020]
iii) Mahendrabhai Dahayabhai (Kamli) Patel v/s. State of Gujarat [ Criminal Misc. Application No.3992 of 2013]
iv) Yogeshbhai Bhikabhai Chaudhari v/s. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No.18793 of 2014].
4. On the other hand, learned APP argued that license is in name of mother of the petitioner and not in the name of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has no license to sell liquour even in Union territory of Diu. It is submitted that Indian made foreign liquour which is recovered from the spot during raid and have been source for question FIR, was intercepted in State of Gujarat. The petitioner is named in the FIR a
Statements of co-accused can be used as clues for investigation; FIRs cannot be quashed solely based on such statements at the initial stage.
Statements of co-accused can be used as clues for investigation; quashing FIR at initial stage is not permissible.
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 and cannot be dismissed at the pre-trial stage; FIRs should not be quashed unless no cognizable offence is disclosed.
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, while inadmissible at trial, can guide initial investigations and do not warrant quashing of FIRs at the preliminary stage.
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 can guide investigations but are not sufficient for quashing an FIR at the initial stage of proceedings.
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....
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
