IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 1826 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

MOSINBHAI OSMANBHAI HALAI (MUSLIM)

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR. DENISH V MAVADHIYA(9207) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS. CHETANA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS Date : 25/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms. Chetana Shah waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no. 1 – State.

2. By way of preferring the present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant-accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the First Information Report No.11186002251846 of 2025 lodged before the Kodinar Police Station, District Gir Somnath for the offences punishable under Sections 65(e), 98(2), 81, 83, 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, and under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 2329 of 2025 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kodinar, District – Gir Somnath, so also all other consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Denish V Mavadhiya appearing for the applicant-accused and learned APP Ms.

Chetana Shah appearing for the respondent no.1 – State.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Denish V. Mavadhiya appearing for the present applicant-accused has submitted that the FIR lodged by the complainant is palpably false. There is not an iota of evidence to implicate the present applicant-accused herein with the alleged offence. He has further submitted that the impugned FIR, even if it is taken at its face value, could not even establish the offence as alleged in the FIR. He has submitted that the present applicant was not present at the place of the incident nor was he found in conscious possession of the liquor, and he was not the owner of the vehicle, from which, the liquor was found and seized. Learned advocate has further submitted that the present applicant has nothing to do with the persons who were found in possession of the liquor. Learned advocate Mr. Mavadhiya has, therefore, urged that considering the above, the present application may be allowed and the impugned FIR as well as the proceedings of the criminal case may be quashed and set-aside qua the present applicant-accused.

5. Learned APP Ms. Chetana Shah appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently opposed the present application and has submitted that it is true that the present applicant has been arraigned as an accused on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, however, as per Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, the statement of the co-accused would be relevant for the purpose of investigation since it gives a clue or a piece of information to inquire or investigate as to the role played by the accused in the commission of the offence, and if any satisfactory and reliable evidence or material is found during the course of the investigation in support of the said statement given by the co-accused, certainly, the person against whom the said evidence is available, would be liable for prosecution. Learned APP Ms. Chetana Shah has also submitted that the present applicant-accused is still on a run and, therefore, no investigation has been carried out against him. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid, learned APP Ms. Chetana Shah has urged that the present application may not be entertained and the same may be rejected.

6. Perused the original investigating papers and