SURESH ALIAS SUKHO JAGDISHBHAIKOLI PATEL Vs. POLICE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application u/s 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being C.R. No. III 5023/2007 filed before Valsad Rural Police Station for the offence punishable u/s 66(1)(B),65A,E,81 and 116(1)(B) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.

(2.) Shri Mirza, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that except the statement of the driver i.e. the accused, the applicant is sought to be arraigned and except the statement of the driver of the another vehicle, who is the accused in another complaint, there is no other material and/or evidence against the applicant and therefore, the impugned complaints/FIR requires to be quashed and set aside. He has relied upon section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act as well as section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code and has submitted that the statement of the co-accused is inadmissible in evidence and therefore, the impugned complaints/FIR requires to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) This Court has elaborately considered the above submission and the prayer of the other accused to quash the complaints/FIR solely on the ground that except the statement of the co-accused, there is no other material and/or evidence and therefore, the FIR is to be quashed and set aside, is negatived by this Court by judgment and order rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No.1509 of 2007 and allied matters. This Court has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Malek Mondal V. Pranjal Bardalai and another reported in 2005(10) SCC 608 and considering the same, this Court has held that at the initial stage of investigation, the said ground is not required to be considered and on that ground that except the statement of the co-accused, there is no other material and/or evidence and therefore, the complaint is to be quashed and set aside, has been negatived by this Court by holding that at the initial stage, the same is not required to be considered, more particularly, when the accused are still to be interrogated.