Gujarat High Court
Vijaybhai Babubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 10 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17743/2020 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 17743 of 2020
==========================================================
VIJAYBHAI BABUBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YASH N NANAVATY(5626) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 10/03/2025
ORAL ORDER
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.11214046201726
of 2020 registered with Palsana Police Station for the offences
under Sections 65(E), 81, 98(2) and 116(b) of the Prohibition Act
and under Section 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code
and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Facts of the case are as under :-
2.1. The FIR is registered by Mr. C.M.Gadhvi Police Sub
Inspector, Palsana Police Station, Surat Rural on 30/10/2020 at
18:00. It is alleged in the FIR that since it was Id-Milad festival
on 30/10/2020 he was on duty along with other police officials
and they were patrolling in government as well as private
vehicles, it is further stated that when they had reached nearPage 1 of 14
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 22:39:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/17743/2020 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2025
undefined
Dastan Railway Crossing a Tempo Vehicle overtook the police
vehicle on very high speed, therefore the complainant along with
other police officials chased down the tempo vehicle, the tempo
vehicle was bearing registration number MH-48-AG-5369 and
two persons were sitting in the vehicle, it is alleged that upon
inquiring from the driver about his identification, he said that
his name was Bhavesh Ganeshdas Hamerdas Vaishnav and the
name of the cleaner was Mukeshbhai Pannadas Kishandas
Vaishnav and both of them belonged to Rajasthan; it is further
alleged that upon inquiring they told that the tempo is carrying
Chemical and also gave a Bilti which read SMR SHREE
MAHADEV ROADLINES H.O: GULAB BAG, RING ROAD INDORE
452010 Serial No. 1314. It is alleged that the complainant asked
both the accused Bhavesh Vaishnav and Mukesh Vaishnav to
open the Tempo and show the chemical, that upon opening the
tempo the complainant saw that it was filled with boxes of
Liquor, therefore, the complainant called the following two
panchas for the purpose of carrying out the Panchnama and
they are (1). Anilbhai Chhaganbhai Solanki and (2). Akshaybhai
Ishwarbhai Kanthariya, that since because of the location of the
tempo there was difficulty in carrying out the Panchnama the
complainant brought to the tempo alongwith the accused to
Police Station and found the liquor as described in the FIR.
Hence, FIR is lodged.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are falsely involved in the offence on the basis of
statement of co-accused recorded during investigation. It is
Page 2 of 14
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 22:39:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17743/2020 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2025
undefined
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. It is
submitted that petitioner has not committed any offence under
the IPC as alleged as the petitioner was not the maker of the
alleged document or petitioner is aware about any such
document. It is therefore submitted to allow this petition and to
quash the FIR against the petitioner.
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.
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
Page 3 of 14
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 22:39:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17743/2020 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2025
undefined
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. So far as second contention of the petitioners 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 is concerned.
9. At the outset, if role of the accused could be seen from
available record that petitioner is arrayed either as supplier of
liqour or liquor was to be supplied to him. Admittedly, the role of
the petitioner unfurled during the statement of other accused
who are arrested in aforesaid FIR. However, the petitioner
approached this Court at initial stage of investigation for
quashing of FIR. Investigation in FIR is stayed by interim order.
Indeed statement of co-accused is not admissible in evidence but
it is relevant during the investigation. Learned advocate for the
petitioners relying upon the various judgment argued that since
co-accused statement is not admissible in evidence, FIR needed
to be quashed. At first blush argument looks attractive but stage
Page 4 of 14
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 22:39:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17743/2020 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2025
undefined
of deciding admissibility of evidence comes after filing charge
sheet; framing of charge and during recording of evidence. At the
initial stage of registration of FIR and starting of investigation on
the basis of statement of co-accused issue of admissibility would
not arise.
10. With profit, I may refer to observation in the case of
Kailash Govindram Rathi Versus State Of Gujarat [2008 (1) GLR
750], this Court has held in para 6,8,9 and 10 as under :-
“6. At the outset it is required to be noted that against all
the respective applicants, the complainants are filed before
the different Police Stations for the offences punishable
under Ss. 66(B), 65(a)(e), 81, 43 read with Sec. 116(2) of
the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 . It is also required to be
noted that in almost all the cases the accused who were
caught are Drivers, Cleaners etc., transporting English
liquor from the places out of Gujarat to the State of
Gujarat. It is also required to be noted that there is
prohibition in the State of Gujarat. It is also required to be
noted that in almost all the cases allegations against the
respective applicants on the basis of the statements of the
persons who are arrested are that the applicants are either
suppliers of the liquor and/or liquor was to be supplied to
them for the purpose of sell within the State of Gujarat. In
almost all the cases the allegations is that the applicants
are absconding and most of them are from out of the State
of Gujarat. Now on the basis of the allegations and
averments in the complaints, and on the basis of the
statements of the co-accused who are arrested, the
Investigating Officer started to initiate investigation against
the applicants, at that initial stage all the applicants have
approached this Court by way of present application for
quashing and setting aside the respective complainants
against them solely on the ground that except the
statements of the co-accused there is no material and/or
evidence against them. This Court granted stay of further
investigation in almost all the cases. Now the questionPage 5 of 14
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 22:39:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/17743/2020 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2025
undefined
which is required to be considered at this stage is whether
the investigation is to be commenced and/or proceeded on
the basis of the statements of the co-accused and whether
the Investigating Officer should be permitted to further
investigate the case and/or whether at this stage even
before the investigation is concluded respective
complainants are required to be quashed.
7. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the applicants
have relied upon the decision in the case of New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) have submitted that in the
aforesaid decision, this Court has taken a view that on the
basis of the statements of the co-accused there cannot be
any conviction. In one of the cases Jinabhai Kalabhai
Rajput (supra) the accused was convicted and in the case
of Suresh Chhotalal Verma (supra), the accused was
discharged. Now it is required to be noted at this stage that
in the case of Jinabhai Kalabhai Rajput (supra) the
question came to be considered at the time of appeal and
accused was convicted solely on the basis of the
statements of the co-accused and it was found that there
was no other material and/or evidence against the
accused. Now so far as the case of Suresh Chhotala Verma
(supra) is concerned in that case the question came to be
considered at time of discharge after chargesheet was
submitted and it was found considering the charge-sheet
papers that except the statements of the co-accused there
was no material and/or evidence against the accused and
considering the same accused came to be discharged.
Thus, the stage at which this Court intervened was the
stage at the time of discharge i.e. after the investigation
was completed and charge-sheet was filed. Under the
circumstances both the decisions are not applicable to the
facts of the present cases.
8. Identical question came to be considered by the Hon ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Malek Mondal (supra)
reported in 2005 10 SCC 608 and the case before the Hon
ble Supreme Court was that an application was submitted
u/s. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the
complaint and one of the ground canvassed on behalf of
the accused was that there was no material against the
Page 6 of 14
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 22:39:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17743/2020 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2025
undefined
petitioners except the inadmissible retracted statement
allegedly made by the co-accused. The Hon ble Supreme
Court confirmed the order passed by the High Court
refusing to quash the complaint on that ground at the
stage of investigation and the Hon ble Supreme Court has
held that the question about corroborative nature of
evidence has to be considered at the appropriate stage and
the High Court rightly declined the prayer to quash the
complaint at the initial stage when only cognizance had
taken and the accused was still to be interrogated.
Relevant paragraph No. 6 of the said judgement is
reproduced as under:
“6. The proceedings of the complaint are at the initial stage
after the cognizance has been taken. The petitioner could
not be interrogated since he has been avoiding to appear
before the NCB officer despite issue of various notices as
per the averments made in the complaint. The allegations
in the complaint are grave. The recover, according to the
prosecution, is of 2.050 kg of heroin which, according to
the statement of Dilip Das, belonged to the petitioner. The
question whether Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act has been
complied or not being a question of fact has to be gone into
on appreciation of evidence that may be adduced before
the Special Judge. Prima facie, the High Court has come to
the conclusion that there has been compliance. This is not
the stage for in-depth examination of this question. The
contention that there is no material against the petitioner
since the only material on record was inadmissible
retracted statement allegedly made by the co-accused Dilip
Das, also cannot be accepted, at this stage, when only
cognizance has been taken and the petitioner is still to be
interrogated. The question about corroborative nature of
evidence may also have to be gone into at the appropriate
state. The only other contention urged is about the lack of
power of the Special Judge to issue warrant of arrest.” Now
considering the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in
the case of Mohd. Malek Mondal (supra) and considering
the facts of the present case, stage at which the
proceedings are pending i.e. at the initial stage of the
investigation, the contention on behalf of the respective
applicants that the complaints are required to be quashedPage 7 of 14
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 22:39:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/17743/2020 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2025
undefined
and set aside on the ground that except statements of the
co-accused there is no material and/or evidence against
the applicants, cannot be accepted.
9. It is required to be noted that investigation was at the
initial stage and the investigation was to be
initiated/proceeded further on the basis of the statements
of the co-accused and the allegations and averments in the
complainants. Before even the investigation is carried out,
the applicants have approached this Court and the Police
Officers are restrained from further investigation. It is also
required to be noted that in almost all the cases, the
applicants are absconding and/or residing outside State of
Gujarat. Unless and until the investigation is proceeded
further; the respective applicants are interrogated and till
the investigation is completed, it cannot be said that there
is no material and/or evidence against the applicants. All
these things are required to be considered after the
investigation is completed and appropriate report and/or
charge-sheet is submitted against the applicants and
thereafter, the question is required to be considered
whether the applicants are to be prosecuted or not. At the
initial stage of investigation the respective complaints
cannot be quashed and set aside solely on the ground that
at this stage there are only statements of the co-accused
which is inadmissible in evidence. Corroborative nature of
evidence during the course of investigation and statements
of co-accused can be considered at an appropriate stage.
Under the circumstances, at the initial stage complainants
cannot be quashed. It cannot be disputed that it is
statutory right of the Investigating Officer to investigate the
complainants and the offences and the Investigating
Officer cannot be restrained from further investigation
solely on the ground that at this stage only statements of
the co-accused is available. In fact as per this Court
statements of the co-accused, allegations and the
averments in the complainants to that effect can be the
basis for initiation of further investigation.
10. Under the circumstances, the prayer of the applicants
at this stage to quash the complainants and stall the
investigation at the initial stage cannot be accepted. All
Page 8 of 14
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 22:39:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17743/2020 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2025
undefined
those submissions are required to be considered at an
appropriate stage and not at the stage of investigation. The
submission of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf
of the applicant relying upon sec. 25 of the Indian
Evidence Act and Sec. 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code
are also not required to be considered at this stage, the
same can be considered at an appropriate stage after the
investigation is completed and appropriate report/
chargesheet is filed and/or even at the time of trial.
11. Recently, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Mansing Shakarlal (Damor) Mina v/s. State of Gujarat [2024(0)
AIJEL HC 247952], after taking into consideration divergent
views expressed by this Court in regard to involvement of the
accused in the offence on the statement of co-accused and after
relying on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the
Mohd. Malek Mondal v/s. Pranjal Bardalai [(2005) 10 SCC 608],
has held in para 6.1 to 7.9 as under :-
“6.1 To prop up her contention, she relied on a judgment of
the Apex Court rendered in the case of Mohd. Malek
Mondal v. Pranjal Bardalai and Another, (2005) 10 SCC
608. She also placed reliance on the judgment of this
Court rendered in the case of Firozbhai Hajibhai Sodha v.
State of Gujarat, which is an unreported judgment
rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5836 of 2021
and also a judgment rendered in the case of Budhiyabhai
Somabhai Khalasi v. State of Gujarat, 2012 SCC OnLine
Guj 1300.
7. The facts of the case are absolutely not in
controversy. The other accused against whom the aforesaid
FIRs were registered, as per the prosecution story, they are
found to be in illegal possession of various types of liquor
and have been illegally transporting the same. They were
apprehended by the police and the contraband was seized
from their possession. When they were interrogated after
taking them into custody, during the course ofPage 9 of 14
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 22:39:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/17743/2020 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2025
undefined
investigation, they revealed that the petitioner herein had
supplied the said various types of liquor to them. As
noticed supra, it is on the basis of the said statement of
the co-accused, the petitioner is now shown as one of the
accused in the above FIRs.
7.1 Now, the crucial question that arises for consideration
is whether the petitioner is entitled for quash of the FIR
registered against him on the sole ground that he was
shown as accused in all the above crimes only on the basis
of the statement given by the co-accused or not. According
to the petitioner, the said statement of co-accused is
inadmissible in evidence and he cannot be shown as
accused on the basis of the said statement of the co-
accused.
7.2 This Court has taken divergent views on the said
proposition of law. In some cases, this Court has taken a
view that registering FIR against a person solely on the
basis of the statement of the co-accused is not permissible
and that, the said FIR and the criminal proceedings
initiated thereon are liable to be quashed. The other
Coordinate Benches have taken a view that the statement
of co-accused serves as a clue to the Investigating Officer
regarding the role played by the said person in commission
of the said offence and when the case is at the
investigation stage, that the FIR and the criminal
proceedings initiated against him cannot be quashed and
held that, ultimately it is for the Investigating Officer either
to file the charge-sheet against him after collecting valid
evidence in proof of his complicity in commission of the
said crime or drop the proceedings if no other evidence is
available in proof of his complicity in the commission of the
said crime.
7.3 However, though there are divergent views expressed
by this Court, as discussed supra, the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Malek Mondal (supra), is
relevant in the context to consider. In that case also, the
petitioner therein sought quash of the FIR registered
against him on the ground that there was no material
against him except the inadmissible, retracted statement,
allegedly made by the co-accused. The High Court, wherePage 10 of 14
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 22:39:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/17743/2020 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2025
undefined
the said quash petition was filed, declined to quash the
criminal proceedings initiated against him. When the said
order of the High Court was questioned before the Apex
Court, the Apex Court did not accept the contention that
since the material only available on record was
inadmissible, retracted statement, allegedly made by the
co-accused that the petitioner is entitled for quash of the
criminal proceedings and thereby, upheld the judgment of
the High Court.
7.4 In another judgment rendered in the case of
Mohammed Farsin v. State, represented through the
Intelligence Officer, rendered in Criminal Misc. Application
No. 296 of 2014, the Supreme Court observed as under:
“…The confession of a accused gives a clue to the
investigating authorities as to how to investigate the matter
and against whom to investigate the matter. Thereafter, it
is for the Investigating Officer to collect the evidence
against the said person who has been named by the co-
accused….”
7.5 Thus, from the ratio laid down in the above judgment
by the Apex Court, the legal position is made clear that the
statement of coaccused can be considered and treated as a
clue or a piece of information to inquire or investigate as to
the role played by the said person in commission of the
said offence and if any satisfactory and reliable evidence or
material is found during the course of investigation in
support of the said statement given by the co-accused,
certainly, the said person against whom the said evidence
is available, would be liable for prosecution. At the stage
when the investigation has commenced or the investigation
is going on, in the said facts and circumstances of the
case, it would not be proper to interdict the investigation or
to quash the FIR and the criminal proceedings initiated
thereon against the said person.
7.6 The same view was taken by this Court in the
judgment rendered in the case of Firozbhai Hajibhai Sodha
(supra). This Court in the said judgment has referred all
the earlier judgments of this Court rendered on the point
wherein this Court has held that the said statement of the
co-accused can certainly be taken as a clue by the
Page 11 of 14
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 22:39:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17743/2020 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2025
undefined
Investigating Officer and proceed with investigation against
the said person by registering the case against him and
that the proceedings cannot be quashed. This Court also in
the said judgment relied on the judgment of the Apex
Court rendered in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.
Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav, (2004) 7 SCC 528, and
the above cited judgment in Mohammed Farsin‘s case and
held that the FIR and the criminal proceedings initiated
against a person on the basis of the statement of co-
accused cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the
CrPC.
7.7 In the present context, it is relevant to consider the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the above case of
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra). In the said judgment,
Supreme Court clearly held that when the only other
evidence available to the prosecution to connect the person
with the crime is alleged confession of the co-accused
which according to the learned counsel was inadmissible
evidence, it is too premature to accept the said contention.
7.8 The Apex Court further held in the said judgment that
the admissibility or otherwise of the confessional statement
and the effect of evidence adduced by the prosecution and
the merit of the evidence that may be adduced by the
prosecution are all matters to be considered at the stage of
the trial.
7.9 Thus, though there are divergent views expressed by
this Court on the said proposition of law, in view of the
authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court on
the point as discussed supra, which is the law of land and
binding on this Court, this Court has absolutely no
hesitation to hold that the proceedings against the
petitioner herein that are initiated by way of registering the
FIR on the basis of the statement of co-accused, cannot be
quashed in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under
Section 482 of CrPC. If ultimately, the Investigating Officer
finds material or evidence regarding the complicity of the
petitioner in commission of the said offence, certainly, he
would be liable for prosecution along with the other
accused. If no material is found on the said clue, certainly,
the Investigating Officer would drop the proceedings
Page 12 of 14
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 22:39:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17743/2020 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2025
undefined
against him at the time of filing final report before the
concerned Court. Therefore, the petitions are devoid of
merit and they are liable to be dismissed.”
12. At initial stage, whether cognizable offence is disclosed in
FIR, whether investigation can be thwart by exercising inherent
power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Ltd. v/ s. State
of Uttar Pradesh [2020 SCC Online SC 958], in para 41 has held
as under :-
“41. It is needless to point out that ever since the decision
of the Privy Council in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir
Ahmed AIR 1945 PC 18, the law is well settled that Courts
would not thwart any investigation. It is only in cases
where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is
disclosed in the first information report that the Court will
not permit an investigation to go on. As cautioned by this
Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335, the power of quashing should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the
rarest of rare cases. While examining a complaint, the
quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark
upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the
complaint. In S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat (2001) 7 SCC
659 this Court again cautioned that criminal proceedings
ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a
complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than
an ordinary rule. In S.M. Datta (supra), this Court held
that if a perusal of the first information report leads to
disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are
barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since
the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres
of activities and one ought not to tread over the other
sphere.”
13. The proceedings against the petitioner are initiated by way
Page 13 of 14
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 22:39:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17743/2020 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2025
undefined
of impugned FIR on the basis of statement of co-accused and it
cannot be quashed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. at this juncture.
Statement of co-accused can be taken as clue by Investigating
Officer to proceed with investigation against the petitioners by
registering the case against them. If any evidence or material is
found during course of investigation in support of statement of
co-accused, the petitioners would be liable for prosecution,
otherwise prosecution would be dropped. In the present case,
charge-sheet is not filed and therefore, it would be improper to
quash the FIR at this stage.
14. In view of above, the petition is dismissed. Interim relief
granted earlier, if any, stands vacated.
15. Before parting, it is observed that if ultimately, no material
is found against the petitioner after completion of investigation
and if charge-sheet is filed on the basis of statement of co-
accused, then the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate
proceedings available under law challenging charge-sheet and to
seek quashing of impugned FIR.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
sompura
Page 14 of 14
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Mar 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 11 22:39:34 IST 2025