Quashing of FIR in Liquor Seizure case

Quashing of FIR in Liquor Seizure case High Court

by

In this post we will about procedure for quashing of FIR after the police conducted a raid and seized Liquor bottles from a person’s residence.

JUDGEMENT DIGEST ON Ishvarbhai Samatbhai Chudasama vs. State of Gujarat

In this case, we will cover and give an overview of the case Ishvarbhai Samatbhai Chudasama vs. State Of Gujarat and it will give you a brief yet precise outline regarding all the major facts and issues involved in this particular case which basically revolves quashing of FIR (section 482 of Crpc).

Applicant:- Ishvarbhai Samatbhai Chudasama

Respondent:-State Of Gujarat

Bench:- Justice Ashokkumar C. Joshi

Application Date:-05/06/2020

Court:-High Court of Ahemdabad, Gujrat.

Facts of the case:

Mr. Ravirajsinh Aniruddhsinh Jadeja, Police Head Constable Badge No. 859, City ‘B’ Division Police Station, Jamnagar, on 13.03.2020 while he was on night patrolling accompanied with Police Head Constable Rajeshbhai D. Vegad, Police Constables Hiteshbhai Vanrajsinh Jadeja, Kishorebhai Ravjibhai Parmar, Amitbhai DevsurbhaiGadhvi, DharmendrasinhNattubhai Jadeja and Yuvraj sinh Bharat sinh Jadeja,nearGandhinagar AshapuraMataji Temple, they availed secret information that one Mr. Dharmendrasinh is residing near AshapuraMataji Temple is having English made liquor. They immediately called the panchas and as per Section 120 of the Prohibition Act they raided the premises wherein the person was present who disclosed his name as DharmendrasinhRajendrasinhVala. He was having 66 bottles of English made liquor but not having requisite pass / permit. It was Party Special Deluxe Whisky of 36 bottles worth Rs.18,000/- as well as MC Dowell’s No.1 Superior Whisky in 30 bottles and the rate of each bottle is Rs.500/- and in all Rs.15,000/-. In presence of panchas, by way of panchnama, ultimately the offence is registered under Sections 65 (a), 65 (e) and 116 (b) of the Prohibition Act and the Accused person was arrested.

Timeline of events :-

13/03/2020 – Police raided on basis on an anonymous tip.

05/06/2020 –Application filed for quashing the FIR.

Issues/ Controversies involved:-

  1. Does the applicant is liable under Section 66 (a) (e) and 116(b) of Prohibitions act ?
  2. Is this a fit case to exercise the extraordinary power of the court under section 482 of CrPc.

Judgements quoted on settled law:-

  1. i) Narendra Singh v. State of Punjab[2014 (6) SCC 466].
  2. ii) Parbhatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujarat[2017 (9) SCC 641]

iii) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 AIR 604]

  1. iv) P.Kapur v. State of Punjab[1960 AIR 862]
  2. v) Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr. V/s. Mathew K.C. in Civil Appeal No.1281 of 2018 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.24610 of 2015
  3. vi) Surya Dev Rai V/s. Ram Chander Rai& Ors. in Civil Appeal No.6110 of 2003

ALSO READ-HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH QUASHING OF FIR IN MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES

Findings of the court :- After pursuant of provision in section 482 of Crpc and pursuant of supreme court judgements, merely stating that the applicant was not present at the time of raid and the place where the raid was conducted does not belong to applicant is not enough to entertain the application. The investigation is still pending and therefore the court can not only rely on the evidence stated in the FIR. Not entertaining the application is not the abuse of the process of power of the law.

Also by referring to the judgement ‘Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr. V/s. Mathew K.C. in Civil Appeal No.1281 of 2018’ the court denied constitutional remedies that the applicant prayed for under articles 226 & 227 stating whenever there is alternative efficacious remedy available with applicant, applicant is not entitled for constitutional remedies. And once the chargesheet is filed the applicant can defend his case in the trial court.

ALSO READ-498A FIR QUASHING HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH PUNJAB HARYANA

Conclusion:-In the case of Parbhatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujarat [2017 (9) SCC 641] said the same thing because every facts and circumstances of each case is unique and therefore no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated in general.

Therefore it could be concluded that though the applicant fulfills principles stated in previous judgements of supreme courts, due to pending investigation and thus not complete evidence, the high court has full discretionary power as mentioned in section 482 of CRPC.

ALSO READ-QUASHING OF FIR UNDER SECTION 188 IPC HIGH COURT

This post was written by Rushikesh Patil

For case specific advice, please contact best/top/expert Criminal Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur of Punjab

More on 99888-17966

Call Us