Proceedings alleging forgery and conspiracy cannot continue against an accused absent independent evidence of complicity.

The petitioner, stated to be a director of Vinita Enterprise, sought quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) of FIR being C.R. No. I-143/2016 registered at Odhav Police Station for offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 114 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).

During patrolling, police intercepted a truck carrying approximately 15,100 kg of aluminium scrap.

The driver produced a weighbridge receipt and a bilty identifying Sanjay Metal as the supplier and Rajesh Metal as the purchaser; the supplier’s address was allegedly found to be false.

The prosecution alleged that the goods had been loaded from a godown associated with the accused persons and that forged documents had been used in connection with the transaction.

The petitioner contended that Vinita Enterprise had purchased only 3.5 tons of scrap from Ramdev Enterprise, which had imported approximately 19.05 tons of aluminium scrap from Saudi Arabia.

The remaining stock was allegedly kept temporarily at the petitioner’s premises as part of the commercial practice of “crossing of goods” and was intended for delivery to other customers.

The State opposed quashing, submitting that the charge-sheet disclosed offences and that the High Court should not conduct a mini-trial at the Section 482 stage.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioner disclosed sufficient material to constitute offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 114 and 120(B) IPC warranting continuation of the prosecution?

2. Whether the alleged statement of a co-accused could, by itself, be relied upon to establish the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged forgery and criminal conspiracy?

3. Whether continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner, in the absence of direct or indirect incriminating material, would amount to an abuse of the process of law?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC concerning forgery and use of forged documents, Section 114 IPC concerning abetment, and Section 120(B) IPC concerning criminal conspiracy.

Relying on P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157, the Court held that a police statement of an accused under Section 161 CrPC cannot ordinarily be used as substantive material against a co-accused: a confessional statement is subject to the statutory safeguards under Sections 24–30 of the Evidence Act, 1872, while an admission is evidence against its maker alone; an exculpatory statement cannot be relied upon against another accused and is subject to the limitations of Section 162 CrPC.

A co-accused’s confession may be considered against another accused under Section 30 of the Evidence Act only at trial, where the statutory requirements of relevance, admissibility, proof, joint trial and incrimination of the maker and co-accused are satisfied.

The Court examined the charge-sheet material and the statement of accused No. 5.

It found that the alleged statement did not disclose the petitioner’s involvement in the preparation, use or circulation of forged documents, nor did it establish the petitioner’s participation in any conspiracy.

Applying P. Krishna Mohan Reddy, the Court held that even if the co-accused’s statement were considered, it could not independently be used to implicate or ultimately convict the petitioner.

The Court also accepted that the petitioner’s company had ordered only 3.5 tons from a larger consignment of approximately 19.05 tons, and that the remaining material was allegedly kept at the petitioner’s premises for onward delivery to other customers pursuant to an ordinary commercial arrangement.

Since the charge-sheet contained no direct or indirect evidence demonstrating the petitioner’s complicity in forgery, use of forged documents, abetment or conspiracy, continuation of the prosecution was held to be an abuse of process.

It held that the material on record did not establish the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offences and that reliance on the co-accused’s statement could not cure the absence of independent incriminating evidence.

The petition was accordingly allowed, and FIR C.R. No. I-143/2016 registered with Odhav Police Station, together with all consequential proceedings, was quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

Rule was made absolute to that extent.