Inadmissible Confessional Statement of Co-Accused Without Corroborative Evidence Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution Against Legal Professional

The petitioner, a legal professional, sought the quashing of an F.I.R. registered under Sections 419, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), and 353 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that one Amod Shah @ Suman Kumar impersonated a wanted accused, Pappu Mandal @ Suresh Mandal, in the courtroom of the CJM, Jamui.

Upon apprehension, the impersonator allegedly stated to the police that the petitioner had asked him to appear in court.

However, the District Prosecution Officer confirmed that no bail application was actually filed by the petitioner on behalf of the impersonator.

The petitioner challenged the F.I.R. on the grounds that his implication was based solely on an inadmissible statement of a co-accused without any corroborating evidence.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed on the ground that the evidence is based solely on suspicion and an inadmissible confession of a co-accused.

2. Whether the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner, a member of the legal profession, amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.

The court primarily applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding to Section 482 of the erstwhile CrPC), which vests the High Court with inherent powers to quash proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.

It further applied the evidentiary principle that a statement made to a police officer by an accused is inadmissible in evidence against a co-accused and cannot constitute substantive evidence.

The Court observed that the entire prosecution case against the petitioner rested exclusively on the statement made by co-accused Suman Kumar during a police inquiry, which is legally inadmissible.

Upon review of the records, the Court found a total absence of independent material—such as forged documents, CCTV footage, financial transactions, or call records—connecting the petitioner to the alleged forgery or impersonation.

Crucially, the Court noted that the F.I.R. itself admitted that the petitioner had not filed any bail application for the impersonator, which directly contradicted the basis of the implication.

The Court reasoned that proceeding against a legal professional based solely on conjecture and inadmissible statements would turn the judicial process into an instrument of oppression.

Exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the Court quashed the F.I.R. and all pending proceedings in Jamui P.S. Case No. 443 of 2023 insofar as they pertained to the petitioner to prevent an abuse of the process of the law.