BALBIRSINH LAYAKSINH TOMAR Vs. STATAE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner, - original accused No.2 has prayed for an appropriate order to quash the set aside the FIR qua the petitioner registered as Prohibition C.R. No.5402 of 2006 dtd 31-12-2006 for the offences punishable u/s 66(b), 65(a)(e) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act with Shaherkotada Police Station.

(2.) An FIR is filed by the respondent No.2 with Shaherkotada Police Station against the petitioner and one another on 31-12-06 for the offence u/s 66(b), 65(a)(e) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act being Prohibition C.R. No.5402 of 2006 alleging inter alia that the respondent No.2, - original complainant was on duty and was on petrolling for tackling with the illegal activities of liquor and gambling and while he was on duty on 31-12-2006, a prior intimation was received by one Police Constable that the petitioner is keeping the liquor and is selling by keeping man at Everest Cross Road and there was a raid by keeping two panchas present and the information was found to be true and there was a raid and at that time, the petitioner started shouting that the police has come and he has run away and the police tried to nap them but he has run away and one Karan Pratapsinh Rathod, original accused No.1 was arrested on the spot and 38 litres of liquor was found along with other materials and therefore, the impugned complaint has been filed. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner, original accused No.2 has preferred the present application u/s 482 of Criminal Procedure Code r/w Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the aforesaid complaint.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that in fact the respondent No.2 is running stands i.e. places, where liquor is being sold and the impugned complaint has been filed with a view to harass the petitioner as the brother of the petitioner has filed one complaint before the DCP against the police officers. It is submitted that there is no material and/or evidence against the petitioner as he was not present at the time of alleged incident and the respondent No.2 has with ulterior motive given the name of the petitioner as accused. It is submitted that the co-accused has given the statement that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the case and therefore, it is requested to quash the FIR.