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

The applicant sought the quashing of FIR No. 11203012220328 of 2022 lodged at Chorwad Police Station, and the resulting Criminal Case No. 244 of 2025.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC and various sections of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The applicant was not found in possession of the illicit liquor nor was he the owner of the vehicle used; his name was surfaced solely based on the statement of a co-accused.

The High Court had already quashed the FIR against a similarly situated co-accused, Ravi Hamirbhai Bharai, in Feb 2026.

1. Whether criminal proceedings can be sustained against an accused when the primary evidence is limited to the statement of a co-accused and no incriminating material is found during investigation.

2. Whether the continuation of such a trial constitutes an abuse of the process of law warranting the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 [formerly Section 482 CrPC], which grants the High Court inherent powers to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice.

Section 10 of the Evidence Act, noting that while a co-accused's statement is relevant for the purpose of initiating or giving a "clue" to an investigation, it cannot serve as the sole basis for conviction in the absence of independent corroborative material.

The Court examined the investigation papers and confirmed that the applicant was neither in "conscious possession" of the contraband nor the owner of the seized vehicle.

While the State argued that the applicant had five prior antecedents and that Section 10 of the Evidence Act allowed for investigation based on co-accused statements, the Court observed that the substantial investigation was complete and yielded no independent incriminating evidence.

Since the entire prosecution case rested exclusively on the statement of the co-accused—which is insufficient for conviction—the Court reasoned that compelling the applicant to face trial would be a "futile exercise" and a waste of judicial resources.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the application, quashing FIR No. 11203012220328 of 2022 and all consequential proceedings, including Criminal Case No. 244 of 2025, qua the applicant to secure the ends of justice.