Criminal proceedings based solely on co-accused statements without corroborating evidence constitute an abuse of legal process.

The applicant sought the quashing of FIR No. 11203012220328 (Chorwad Police Station) and the subsequent proceedings of Criminal Case No. 244 of 2025

The prosecution alleged the applicant was involved in transporting contraband liquor via a specific truck on July 27, 2022

the applicant was not found in conscious possession of the liquor, was not the owner of the vehicle, and was implicated solely based on the statements of co-accused persons who were caught with the contraband

The investigation was concluded, and a charge-sheet was filed on March 13, 2025

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the applicant should be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, when the primary evidence is the statement of a co-accused

2. Whether the continuation of trial against the applicant amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the absence of independent incriminating material

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (analogous to Sec. 482 of the CrPC), regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law

Section 10 of the Evidence Act, noting that while statements of co-accused are relevant for providing leads during investigation, they require corroboration by satisfactory and reliable material to sustain a prosecution

The Court reviewed the original investigation papers and the charge-sheet, finding that no incriminating evidence—such as call records or ownership documents—existed to link the applicant to the co-accused or the vehicle

While acknowledging that statements made under Section 10 of the Evidence Act can guide investigations, the Court observed that since the investigation was complete and yielded no independent evidence, the prosecution's case rested entirely on the co-accused's statements

The Court also noted that the FIR against another co-accused, Ravi Hamirbhai Bharai, had already been quashed by the High Court in a prior application

Consequently, the Court reasoned that putting the applicant through a trial would be a "futile exercise" because there was no likelihood of conviction based on the available record

The Court allowed the application and quashed FIR No. 11203012220328 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 244 of 2025 qua the applicant. All consequential proceedings arising from the FIR were also set aside