Statement of Co-Accused Can Only Be a Clue, Not the Sole Basis for FIR Quashing: Gujarat High Court Declines to Interfere at Investigation Stage

“Admissibility of Co-Accused’s Statement Is a Trial Issue—Quashing FIR at Investigation Stage Would Be Premature” – In a detailed and precedent-laden judgment, the Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition filed by Nasimuddin @ Azad Nizamuddin Hafiz seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC. The FIR pertained to alleged offences under Sections 65(A)(E), 81, and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The Court held that merely because the petitioner’s name surfaced in the statement of a co-accused, it could not be a ground to stifle investigation at the nascent stage, especially when no charge sheet had yet been filed.

Justice J.C. Doshi, rejecting the plea, ruled: “Statement of co-accused can be taken as clue by the Investigating Officer… If any material is found during the course of investigation in support of the statement, the petitioner would be liable for prosecution; otherwise, the prosecution would be dropped. In the present case, charge-sheet is not filed and therefore, it would be improper to quash the FIR at this stage.”

Seizure of ₹14.5 Lakh Worth Liquor, Accusation Based on Co-Accused's Statement

The FIR in question (C.R. No. III-59 of 2019, Kamrej Police Station) arose from a tip-off received on February 13, 2019, regarding a Scorpio vehicle allegedly transporting illicit liquor. Upon interception, police recovered liquor valued at ₹14.5 lakhs. During investigation, the arrested accused disclosed the name of the present petitioner as a supplier or recipient, leading to registration of the FIR.

The petitioner argued that he was not present at the scene, was undergoing treatment for a leg injury, and had been falsely implicated based solely on the uncorroborated statement of the arrested accused. He sought quashing of the FIR, pointing to absence of any direct evidence linking him to the contraband.

Statement of Co-Accused Not Admissible in Evidence, But Can Trigger Investigation

The Court acknowledged that “statement of a co-accused is not admissible in evidence,” but clarified that “it is relevant for the purpose of investigation.” Referring to established legal principles, the Court held:

“At the initial stage of registration of FIR and starting of investigation on the basis of statement of co-accused, issue of admissibility would not arise.”

Justice Doshi reinforced this by citing Mohd. Malek Mondal v. Pranjal Bardalai [(2005) 10 SCC 608], where the Supreme Court held that a statement of co-accused, even if inadmissible for conviction, can be the starting point of investigation.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s words: “The proceedings are at the initial stage… The contention that there is no material except an inadmissible retracted statement of co-accused cannot be accepted when the petitioner is still to be interrogated.”

Gujarat HC: Quashing Petitions Must Be Rare; Investigation Cannot Be Stifled

The Court emphasized the limited scope for interference under Section 482 CrPC, especially at a pre-charge sheet stage. Citing Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP [2020 SCC Online SC 958], it reiterated: “The power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases… The court cannot usurp the domain of the police at the FIR stage.”

Justice Doshi further observed: “If no cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR, the Court may interfere. But where some material exists—however minimal—especially when investigation is ongoing, Courts should refrain from quashing proceedings.”

Petitioner’s Criminal Antecedents Also Weighed Against Him

The Court noted that 22 prior cases were registered against the petitioner, which added to the justification for continuing investigation. “It cannot be said that the investigating officer has acted without basis,” the Court concluded.

“The petition is dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated. If ultimately no material is found against the petitioner after completion of investigation… the petitioner is at liberty to take legal recourse.”

Date of decision: April 9, 2025