IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak, J.
Uday Shivhare & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 26919 of 2023 (Gwalior); Decided on 30.1.2024
Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 482 -- M. P. Excise Act, 1915 -- S. 34(2) -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 109 -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 27 -- quashing of FIR -- place from where seizure was made is in fact licensed premises of petitioner No. 1 -- contention of respondent/State that petitioners were running two shops in same locality on single licence appears vulnerable because petitioner No. 1 cannot gain anything by opening two shops adjacent to each other or even few meters away from each other on single licence as it may cost him financially higher than operating single shop -- petitioner No. 1 is licence-holder therefore no prosecution u/s. 34(2) of Excise Act can be allowed -- only implicative material against petitioner No. 1 is disclosure statement made by petitioner No. 2 (employee of petitioner No. 1) -- no recovery of any kind made from petitioner No. 1 -- merely on basis of memo recorded u/s. 27 of Evidence Act, petitioner No. 1 cannot be prosecuted -- petitioner No. 2 also cannot be prosecuted since he was working in licensed shop -- continuance of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law -- FIR quashed. (2013) 3 SCC 330 and AIR 1992 SC 604 followed. 2017 (1) MPLJ (Cri.) 623, 2017 (3) JLJ 217 = 2017 (3) MPLJ (Cri.) 263 and 2016 (3) JLJ 83 referred to. [Paras 10 to 14]
naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & eŒçŒ vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1915 & /kkjk 34¼2½ & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 109 & lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & èkkjk 27 & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk vfHk[kaMu & ftl LFkku ls vfHkxzg.k fd;k x;k og okLro esa ;kph Øekad 1 dk vuqKIr vgkrk & çR;FkhZ&jkT dk ;g ladFku fd ;kphx.k mlh ifj{ks= esa ,d gh vuqKfIr ij nks nqdkusa pyk jgs Fks] nks"kiw.kZ çrhr gksrk gS D;ksafd nks lkaikf'oZd ;k ,d&nwljs ls dqN ehVj dh nwjh ij Hkh nks nqdkusa [kksy dj ;kph Øekad 1 dks dksbZ ykHk ugha gksxk D;ksafd blls mldk ,d nqdku pykus ls vf/kd foÙkh; [kpkZ gksxk & ;kph Øekad 1 vuqKfIr/kkjh gS blfy, vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 34¼2½ ds v/khu vfHk;kstu vuqKkr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & ;kph Øekad 1 dks vijk/k esa Q¡lkus okyh ,dek= lkexzh ;kph Øekad 2 ¼;kph Øekad 1 dk deZpkjh½ }kjk fd;k x;k çdVhdj.k dFku gS & ;kph Øekad 1 ls fdlh çdkj dh dksbZ cjkenxh ugha gqbZ & lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 27 ds v/khu vfHkfyf[kr Kkiu ds vk/kkj ek= ij ;kph Øekad 1 dks vfHk;ksftr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & ;kph Øekad 2 dks Hkh vfHk;ksftr ugha fd;k tk ldrk D;ksafd og vuqKIr nqdku esa dk;Z dj jgk Fkk & nkafMd dk;Zokgh tkjh j[kuk fof/k dh çfØ;k ds nq:i;ksx dh dksfV esa vk,xk & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vfHk[kafMrA ¼2013½ 3 ,llhlh 330 rFkk ,vkbvkj 1992 ,llh 604 vuqlfjrA 2017 ¼1½ ,eih,yts ¼fØŒ½ 623] 2017 ¼3½ ts,yts 217 % 2017 ¼3½ ,eih,yts ¼fØŒ½ 263 rFkk 2016 ¼3½ ts,yts 83 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 10 ls 14½
ORDER
1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of FIR dated 6.5.2023 registered at Crime No.247/2023 at Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior for the offence under sections 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 read with section 109 of IPC.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on 6.5.2023, respondent No.1 lodged an FIR that during flag march, an information was received by the Police Station that some persons are illegally selling liquor from the shop which is otherwise closed. It is alleged that certain officers of respondent No.1 went to the spot and found that petitioner No.2 was selling liquor from the shop alleged to be closed. When police directed petitioner No.2 to produce licence, it was informed by petitioner No.2 that there is no licence for the alleged shop, then police seized 27 boxes of Masala Country liquor and 36 boxes of plan country liquor along with cash of Rs.25,100/-. On interrogation, petitioner No.2 referred the name of petitioner No.1 from him he procured the liquor and therefore, petitioner No.1 was also arrayed as accused in the case purportedly under section 109 of IPC. Thereafter, investigation carried out and charge-sheet has been filed and therefore, petitioners are before this Court.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is licence holder from the State Government (FCL-1), therefore, petitioners are having absolute right to sale the country made liquor and foreign liquor from the disputed premises. In fact the premises which was raided by respondent No.1 was the premises earmarked under licence for sale of liquor. Petitioner No.1 is having valid licence for country made liquor and foreign liquor for 2023-24 for composite shop situate at Kumharpura, Thatipur District Gwalior. Copy of the licence annexed with the petition as Annexure P/2 indicates such fact. When petitioner No.1 successfully paid revenue to the Government and for last 30 years liquor shop is being run, then approach of authority to make raid over the premises which is licenced one, appeared to be misplaced and contrary to law. Even otherwise, as per section 61 of the M.P. Excise Act, Investigating Officer has lodged the FIR which is not permissible. For this purpose, complaint needed to be filed before the concerned Court of law.
4. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 is arrayed on the basis of memo of co-accused prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act and no recovery in pursuance thereof has been made from the possession of petitioner No.1. Liquor has been seized only from the possession of petitioner No.2. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gajendra Singh Bhadoria v. State of M.P., 2017(3) JLJ 217 =2017 (1) MPLJ (Cri) 623. Said judgment has been followed by the Coordinate in the case of Girish Bhatnagar v. State of M.P. 2017 (3) MPLJ (Cri) 263. He also relied upon the case of Santram and others v. State of M.P. and others, 2016 (3) JLJ 83.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the submissions and submitted that petitioner No.2 was selling liquorw ithout permit and therefore, he has been arrayed as accused and on the basis of his memo under section 27 of the Evidence Act, petitioner No.1 was arrayed as accused. They were not selling the liquor from the shop which is earmarked for sale under the licence. He prayed for dismissal of this petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto.
7. In the case in hand petitioners are taking exception to the FIR registered at crime No.247/2023 and seeking the relief of quashing the said FIR registered at crime No.247/2023 at Police Station Thatipur District Gwalior for offence under section 34(2) of Excise Act and section 109 of IPC.
8. Present petitioners placed on record copy of the licence granted to petitioner No.1 from 1.4.2023 till 31.
A memo prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be the sole basis for prosecution; corroborative evidence is necessary to establish a connection to the offense.
It is trial which determines fate of an accused.
The Magistrate's failure to observe required procedural compliance prior to taking cognizance of offences under the Disaster Management Act invalidates the proceedings.
The High Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings if the dispute involves compoundable offences under the Excise Act to prevent the abuse of process ....
The court emphasized the importance of substantial compliance with statutory provisions and highlighted the need for determining factual matters in the trial court.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.