Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C. DOSHI, J.
Joginderpal Devraj Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and Another - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing & Set Aside Fir/Order) No. 3537 of 2014
Decided On : 03-04-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Prohibition Act - Sections 66(b), 65(A)(E), and 116 - Quashing of FIR - The applicant sought to quash an FIR for alleged involvement in liquor transportation based solely on co-accused statements. The court held that statements of co-accused can guide investigations but are not conclusive evidence at this stage. The investigation was still ongoing, and the court emphasized that quashing FIRs at this initial stage is not appropriate. (Paras 1, 6, 12, 13)
(B) Evidence Act - Section 10 - Admissibility of co-accused statements - The court noted that while co-accused statements are not admissible as evidence, they can be relevant during the investigation phase. (Paras 7, 8)
(C) Judicial precedent - The court referred to various judgments, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Mohd. Malek Mondal v. Pranjal Bardalai, affirming that co-accused statements can serve as clues for further investigation. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was implicated in an FIR based on a co-accused's statement regarding liquor transportation. The co-accused had been acquitted, raising doubts about the applicant's involvement.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the investigation was at an initial stage and that the FIR could not be quashed based solely on co-accused statements.
Issues: The main issues were whether the FIR could be quashed based on co-accused statements and the admissibility of such statements during the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that co-accused statements can guide investigations but are not sufficient for quashing an FIR at the initial stage.
Result: Petition dismissed.
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.5285 of 2007 registered with Danilimda Police Station for the offences under Sections 66(b), 65(A)(E), and 116 of the Prohibition Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Facts of the case are as under :-
2.1. It is alleged in the Complaint that the complainant has received secret information that one Maruti frantic car coming from Jashoda Nagar with liquor therefore the complainant with other police personnel and Panchas were made watch on the road and wait for that car and after some time this car was came from highway and the complainant have tried to stop this car but the accused who was driving the car is tried to run away from the place but with the help of other police personnel he was stopped by the police and during the search Rs. 34500 liquor was found from the car and the complaint came to be registered.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the case against the co-accused is put to dormant and thereby earned acquittal and therefore when the present petitioner is falsely involved in the offence on the basis of statement of co- accused recorded during investigation, the petition may be allowed. 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.
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. It is further submitted that 47 other offences are registered against the petitioner and therefore looking to the involvement in the offence petition may not be entertained.
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. The contention of the petitioner that case against the other accused is put to dormant and therefore case against the petitioner is not proved, cannot be treated as acquittal because the accused was not found the trial Court. The contention 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’ble Apex Court has held that if prima facie evidence of conspiracy exists, evidence of statement made by any of the conspiratory in furtherance of common object is admissible so far as investigation
Statements of co-accused can guide investigations but are not sufficient for quashing an FIR at the initial stage of proceedings.
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 are relevant for investigation and do not warrant quashing of FIR at the initial stage; admissibility is determined later.
Statements of co-accused can be used as clues for investigation; FIR cannot be quashed at the initial stage without material evidence.
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 can be used as clues for investigation; quashing FIR at initial stage is not permissible.
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, are relevant for guiding initial investigations, and FIRs cannot be quashed solely on this basis.
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, while inadmissible at trial, can guide initial investigations and do not warrant quashing of FIRs at the preliminary stage.
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
