Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/7955/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 7955 of 2008
=====================================================
MUKESH
DOLATRAM HARJANI - Applicant
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS - Respondents
=====================================================
Appearance
:
MR NK MAJMUDAR for the
Applicant.
MS MANISHA L. SHAH, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
the
Respondents.
=====================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 15/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. RULE.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Manisha L. Shah waives
service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for hearing today.
2. The
petitioner has preferred the present application under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR bearing C. R. No.
III-294 of 2008 lodged against him before Fatehganj Police Station of
Baroda on 31-05-2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 66B,
66A.E, 81 etc. of the Prohibition Act.
3. Learned
Advocate Mr. N. K. Majmudar for the petitioner submitted that if the
FIR produced at Annexure-A is perused in proper perspective, then the
involvement of the applicant is not mentioned therein. The learned
Advocate submitted that even the car which was used in the commission
of offences does not belong to the applicant. The learned Advocate
submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the
commission of offences and as the FIR does not prima facie
disclose the ingredients of the prohibition offences for which it was
alleged, it is a fit case to quash the FIR.
4. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Manisha L. Shah representing the
respondents vehemently submitted that the petitioner is not an
innocent person. He has been booked in 18 cases for various offences
punishable either under the Prohibition Act or the Indian Penal Code,
etc. The petitioner has not been mala fidely booked for the
offences punishable under Section Sections 66B, 66A.E, 81 etc. of the
Prohibition Act. Considering the involvement of the petitioner and
looking to the record of the petitioner, it is a fit case to reject
the present application. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that on perusal of the statement given by Jaimal Sinh, the
vehicle which was used in the commission of offences belonged to the
petitioner and, therefore, the vehicle of the petitioner was used in
the commission of offences. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that considering the past history of the petitioner and as
he has been involved in other offences including the offences
punishable under Section 302, 307, 365, 394, etc of IPC, the
application does not call for any interference and as , therefore, it
is liable to be rejected.
5. Heard
learned Advocate Mr. N. K. Majmudar for the applicant at length and
in great detail. I have perused the averments made in the petition
as well as the FIR produced at Annexure-A to the petition. The
petitioner has been involved in the commission of offences punishable
under Section 66B, 66A E, Section 81 etc of the Prohibition Act. It
has been strenuously contended by the learned Advocate on behalf of
the petitioner that since the petitioner is innocent, the FIR
requires to be quashed and set aside. However, in view of the
submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and on
perusal of the record as well as the statement of witness which has
been relied upon by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it
becomes clear that the car in which the liquour was taken from one
place to the other place belonged to the petitioner and, therefore,
the petitioner cannot be prima facie said to be innocent.
Considering the past record of the petitioner and since 18 cases are
registered against the petitioner for various offences including the
cases under Section 302, 307, 365, 394 of the Indian Penal Code and
as the petitioner was wanted in the past in some of the cases and
evading arrest, it would be hazardous to absolve the petitioner at
this stage when merely FIR is lodged against him. If the FIR is
quashed at this stage, then it would stifle the investigation as the
FIR prima facie discloses the ingredients of the offences for
which the petitioner has been booked. The FIR, in my considered
view, therefore, cannot be quashed.
6. For
the foregoing reasons, the
petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.
[H.
B. ANTANI, J.]
/shamnath
Top