Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 267 (MP)

Suresh Upadhyay v. State of M. P.

2014-03-05

B.D.RATHI

body2014
ORDER 1. With the consent of parties matter is finally heard. 2. By invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') seeking the relief of quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.268/2013 for the offence punishable under sections 34(1)(2) and 47A of M.P. Excise Act and also the entire subsequent criminal proceedings arising out of that crime. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner Suresh Upadhyay has been made as an accused in the present crime registered for the offence punishable under sections 34(1)(2) and 47A of M.P. Excise Act. The present offence was registered on 26th May, 2013 at about 6 pm against Shailendra Singh, Ravindra Singh and present petitioner. 4. The accusation of prosecution is that 1250 quarters country made liquor was seized from a white Scorpio Car bearing No.MP06 BA0121. It is alleged that the present petitioner was also sitting in that vehicle and during search he ran away from the spot. Name of present petitioner was disclosed by co-accused Shailendra Singh Gurjar in his memo who was arrested on the spot. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that except the evidence regarding sitting in the aforesaid vehicle, there is no evidence against the present petitioner, therefore, only on the basis of disclosure statement given under section 27 of Evidence Act by the co-accused Shailendra Singh, present petitioner cannot be convicted. 6. By refuting the submissions of petitioner's learned counsel, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State submitted that since at this stage no evidence can be seen, hence the present petition is bereft of merits and same be dismissed, although she has admitted that only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Shailendra Singh, petitioner has been made an accused. 7. After taking into consideration the entire arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, it appears that there is no cogent evidence collected by the prosecution against the petitioner which connects him to the present crime, therefore, only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, petitioner cannot be convicted. 8. 7. After taking into consideration the entire arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, it appears that there is no cogent evidence collected by the prosecution against the petitioner which connects him to the present crime, therefore, only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, petitioner cannot be convicted. 8. On giving anxious consideration to the issue involved in this petition, this Court is of the considered view that only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Shailendra Singh petitioner cannot be grilled, hence the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. FIR registered at Crime No.268/2013 for the offence punishable under sections 34(1)(2) and 47A of M.P. Excise Act and also the entire subsequent criminal proceedings are hereby quashed.Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary action. 9. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary action.