FIR Quashed Where Accused Arraigned Solely on Co-Accused's Statement Without Corroborating Incriminating Evidence

The applicant-accused filed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash FIR No. 11210015230130 of 2023

The FIR, lodged at the D.C.B. Police Station, Surat, alleged offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 81, 98(2), and 99 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act

The applicant’s name was implicated solely based on a statement made by a co-accused, Mohammad Sarvar Mohammad Siddik Shaikh, who was found in possession of liquor

The applicant contended he was not the owner of the vehicle used, was not in conscious possession of the contraband, and had no documented contact with the other accused

1. Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against the applicant should be quashed on the grounds that the implication was based solely on a co-accused's statement without corroborating evidence

2. Whether the continuation of proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of law when no incriminating material was found after the completion of the investigation

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice

Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, noting that while a co-accused's statement is relevant for the limited purpose of providing a "clue" for investigation, it cannot serve as the sole basis for prosecution in the absence of independent incriminating material

The Court examined the case records and the original investigation papers presented by the Investigating Officer, noting that the investigation was already complete and a charge-sheet had been filed

The Court observed that despite the conclusion of the investigation, there was no independent material—such as call records or ownership documents—connecting the applicant to the liquor or the vehicle

While acknowledging that Section 10 of the Evidence Act allows co-accused statements to guide investigations, the Court reasoned that since no "satisfactory and reliable evidence" was discovered to support that statement, the prosecution's case rested on a legal vacuum

Consequently, the Court found that the essential elements of the alleged prohibition offences were not established against this specific applicant

The Court allowed the application and ordered the quashing of FIR No. 11210015230130 of 2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom specifically regarding the applicant-accused. Rule was made absolute