Statement of co-accused without corroborating materials is insufficient to sustain criminal prosecution under inherent powers.

The applicant sought to quash FIR No. 11203012220328 (Chorwad Police Station) and the resulting Criminal Case No. 170 of 2024 pending before the JMFC, Maliya Hatina.

The applicant was arraigned as an accused primarily based on the statement of a co-accused, Ravi Hamirbhai Bharai, who was allegedly found in possession of liquor in a vehicle.

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

Notably, the High Court had already quashed the FIR against the said co-accused in a previous order dated 25.02.2026.

Whether the criminal proceedings against the applicant should be quashed under the court's inherent powers when the sole basis of implication is the statement of a co-accused without corroborating evidence.

The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 482 CrPC), which allows for the quashing of proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

It considered Section 10 of the Evidence Act, noting that while a co-accused's statement is relevant for the purpose of investigation to provide clues or information, it requires "satisfactory and reliable evidence or material" found during the course of investigation to sustain a prosecution.

The court examined the original investigation papers and observed that despite the investigation being substantially complete, there was no incriminating material linking the applicant to the offense other than the statement of the co-accused.

It noted the absence of call records or any evidence suggesting contact between the applicant and the persons found in possession of the liquor.

The court reasoned that since the applicant was neither the owner of the vehicle nor in conscious possession of the contraband, and given that the FIR against the co-accused (upon whose statement the applicant was named) had already been quashed, there was no likelihood of conviction.

Consequently, forcing the applicant to face trial would be a "futile exercise" and an "abuse of process of law".

The court allowed the application and quashed FIR No. 11203012220328 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 170 of 2024 qua the applicant. Rule made absolute.