IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 12921 of 2025 ==========================================================

SUKHLAL ROOPLAL DANGI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR NM KAPADIA(394) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4 MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 17/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. By filing the present petition in Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as the BNSS), the petitioner has prayed for the following relief.

“A. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to allow the present application;

B. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned F.I.R being Prohi CR No. 11188008250518/2025 registered at Modasa Rural Police Station District: Arvalli on 17.07.2025 under Section 65(a), 65(e), 81, 83, 98(2), 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and Section 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) of Bharatiya Nyayaa Sanhita, 2023 (Annexure A);

C. YOUR LORDHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondents to hold detailed and thro inquiry regarding the representation dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure -B)

and be further pleased to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action affecting the liberty of the applicant;

D. Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay further investigation and proceedings arising out of F.I.R being Prohi. CR No. 11188008250518/2025 registered at Modasa Rural Police Station District: Arvalli on 17.07.2025 under Section 65(a), 65(e), 81, 83, 98(2), 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and Section 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) of Bharatiya Nyayaa Sanhita, 2023 (Annexure A) qua the present applicant;

E.Any other order or relief in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard learned advocate Shri. N. M. Kapadiya appearing for the petitioner. He submitted that the FIR in question came to be registered against the present petitioner only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. Except the statement of the co- accused, there is no other material connecting the petitioner with the offence in question. There is nothing in the FIR indicating the involvement of the petitioner in the offence in question. The applicant has been sought to be roped in with the present offence simply because in the past, several offences of similar nature were registered against him. However, no offence whatsoever has been registered against the petitioner since 2023. The present FIR has been lodged at the instance of certain police officials who have a vested interest in arraigning the present petitioner as an accused in the offence in question. The petitioner herein has submitted several representations to the higher police officials against the concerned employees of the police staff. However, no action whatsoever has been taken by the concerned police authorities in that regard. He submitted that various benches of this Court have consistently taken the view that if there is no other material connecting an accused with the offence in question except the statement of the co- accused, the FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same should be quashed. Learned advocate has sought to rely upon the following judgments in support of his submission.

1) In the judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court in case of Dhanraj Kevalram Rajai Vs. State of Gujarat in Criminal Misc. Application No.900 of 2001.

2) In case of Matru alias Girish Chandra Vs. State of U.P.

reported in AIR 1971 SC 1050

3) In case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. Reported in (1988)

1 SCC 692

4) In the judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court in case of P