FIR based solely on co-accused statement without corroborating evidence constitutes abuse of process and warrants quashing.

The applicant sought to quash FIR No. 11209055250824 of 2025 registered at Vijaynagar Police Station, Sabarkantha, for offences under Sections 65(a) and 65(e) of the Prohibition Act.

The applicant was not found in conscious possession of the seized liquor, nor was he the owner of the vehicle used in the offence.

His name was revealed solely through the statement of a co-accused.

The applicant moved the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending that there was no incriminating evidence to link him to the crime.

1. Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against the applicant should be quashed in the absence of incriminating evidence beyond the statement of a co-accused.

The court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 482 CrPC), regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law.

Section 10 of the Evidence Act, which makes statements of co-conspirators/co-accused relevant for investigation to provide a "clue" or "piece of information," provided such statements are supported by reliable corroborative material found during the recovery or investigation.

The Court examined the original investigation papers and observed that while Section 10 of the Evidence Act allows a co-accused's statement to serve as a starting point for investigation, such a statement cannot be the sole basis for prosecution if the investigation fails to yield independent incriminating material.

The Court noted that the investigation was substantially complete and revealed no connecting evidence—such as call detail records (CDR) or proof of possession—between the applicant and the alleged offence.

Consequently, the Court reasoned that since the entire case rested on the uncorroborated statement of a co-accused, forcing the applicant to face trial would be a "futile exercise" and an "abuse of the process of law".

The High Court allowed the application and ordered the quashing of FIR No. 11209055250824 of 2025 and all consequential proceedings qua the applicant. Rule was made absolute.