Criminal proceedings should be quashed if the prosecution relies exclusively on the statements of co-accused without any corroborative incriminating evidence, as such a trial would be a futile exercise and an abuse of the process of law.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms. Krina Calla 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.11203012220328 of 2022 lodged before the Chorwad Police Station, District Junagadh, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 98(2), 81, 83 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, as well as the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.244 of 2025 pending before the learned JMFC at Maliya Hatina, District Junagadh, 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. Krina Calla 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 with the alleged offence. He has further submitted that the complainant has made general allegations against the applicant-accused, and no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant- accused. He has further submitted that the name of the present applicant has been revealed from the statements of the co- accused, who were found in conscious possession of the liquor and except the statements of the co-accused, there is no incriminating evidence on record against the present applicant- accused.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Denish V. Mavadhiya has submitted that the impugned FIR, even if it is taken at its face value, could not even establish the offence as alleged. He has submitted that the present applicant was not 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 conscious possession of the liquor and there is no evidence of any call records produced by the prosecution to suggest that the present applicant and the accused persons were in contact.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Denish Mavadhiya has further submitted that this Court has already quashed and set aside the FIR qua the co-accused, namely, Ravi Hamirbhai Bharai , vide order dated 25.02.2026 in Criminal Misc. Application No.1738 of 2026. He has, therefore, urged that considering the above, the present application may be allowed and the impugned FIR may be quashed and set-aside.

7. Learned APP Ms. Krina Calla appearing for the respondent No.1 – State has vehemently opposed the present application and has submitted that it is true that the present applicant has been arraigned as an accused solely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, however, as per Section 10 of the 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 b