JUDGMENT : ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J. 1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. By way of this Application filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Applicant has prayed for quashing of FIR being C.R. No. 11202009200246 of 2020 registered with City ‘B’ Division Police Station, Jamnagar. 3. The Applicant has prayed for the prayers which reads as under: “7. (A) Quash and set aside the impugned FIR being C.R. No. 11202009200246 of 2020 registered with City ‘B’ Division Police Station, Jamnagar, Annexure-A to this petition with all other consequential proceedings arising thereof against the petitioner. (B) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings in connection with the impugned FIR being C.R. No. 11202009200246 of 2020 registered with City ‘B’ Division Police Station, Jamnagar Annexure-A of this petition. (C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the investigating officer not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in connection with the impugned FIR being C.R. No. 11202009200246 of 2020 registered with City ‘B’ Division Police Station, Jamnagar, Annexure-A to this petition.” 4. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are as under: Mr. Ravirajsinh Aniruddhsinh Jadeja, Police Head Constable Badge No. 859, City ‘B’ Division Police Station, Jamnagar, complained 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 Devsurbhai Gadhvi, Dharmendrasinh Nattubhai Jadeja and Yuvrajsinh Bharatsinh Jadeja, at that time, near Gandhinagar Ashapura Mataji Temple, they availed secret information that one Mr. Dharmendrasinh @ Bhano who is residing near Ashapura Mataji Temple is having English made liquor. Therefore, immediately cops called the panchas and as per Section 120 of the Prohibition Act they raided the premises wherein the person was present and he had disclosed his name Dharmendrasinh Rajendrasinh Vala. 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/-. 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. 5. Pursuant to that FIR, it appears that the Applicant has moved before this Court for quashing of the FIR contending inter-alia that the Applicant is neither bootlegger nor his activity is involved in the FIR and only on the basis of statement of co-accused Yuvrajsinh Vala the offence is registered. There is neither any evidence against the Applicant nor the Applicant is the owner of the house. The Applicant is also not the owner of the goods, which is alleged in the FIR and therefore the Applicant is falsely implicated in the present FIR. The Applicant is not arrested and charge-sheet is not filed and there is no other effective remedy available against him. 6. It is also contended that the petitioner is totally innocent and the complaint which is filed against him is baseless, illegal and without evidence and therefore, in the interest of justice, it is required to be quashed and set aside. 7. It is also contended that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged much less the offence punishable under Sections 65(a), 65 (e) and 116 (b) of the Prohibition Act. It is also contended that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the FIR on the basis of statement of co-accused. Having no evidentiary value, there is no chance of the conviction. It is also contended that the applicant is neither owner of the goods nor owner of the house and there is no single evidence against the applicant. Therefore, there is no possibility of conviction and therefore, this petition may kindly be allowed and therefore, FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is quashed. 8. It is also contended that the applicant has not filed any other application with regard to the subject matter of this application neither in this Court nor in Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no possibility of conviction and therefore, this petition may kindly be allowed and therefore, FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is quashed. 8. It is also contended that the applicant has not filed any other application with regard to the subject matter of this application neither in this Court nor in Supreme Court. On all such grounds, the applicant has prayed which is mentioned in the beginning of the judgment. 9. This Court has heard learned advocate Mr. Sandip Patel for the applicant and also learned APP, Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondent-State. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Sandip Patel for the applicant has vehemently argued that in the present case, the applicant is neither having alleged prohibited goods at the so-called raided place by the police, neither he is the owner of the house, but merely on the basis of the statement of co-accused, the Applicant is arrested and therefore, this is a fit case to exercise the extraordinarily powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the FIR. 11. Per contra, learned APP, Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondent-State vehemently contended that the Applicant is arrested by cops having contraband goods i.e. English liquor bottles in all 66 bottles valued at Rs. 33,000/- which is a very big quantity. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioner is involved in prohibition case which is a more stringent case in the State of Gujarat, and therefore also this is not a fit case to exercise the extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and therefore, petition is required to be dismissed. 12. Having heard the arguments advanced by both the sides, before we discuss the merits of the case, it would be just and proper to refer the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for invoking jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the FIR. 13. 12. Having heard the arguments advanced by both the sides, before we discuss the merits of the case, it would be just and proper to refer the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for invoking jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the FIR. 13. Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code reads as under:- “482 Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any other under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 9.1 Upon plain reading of the section, it starts with the word “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit...” It means this Court has extraordinary powers where there is no limit under the provisions to exercise for the same. Further, it states the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code. It means, again if the powers are exercised under this provision, it shall not effect to the inherent powers of the High Court. Further, legislation has used the word “May.” Therefore, it is purely discretionary power. Further, it reads with the words “to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” It means I have to examine (i) to prevent the abuse of process of the Court and (ii) to secure ends of justice. Both the objectives are also considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Narendra Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2014 (6) SCC 466 . 9.2 It is true that no where in the Code, there is definition of abuse of process of the Court, no where it is discussed. Both the objectives are also considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Narendra Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2014 (6) SCC 466 . 9.2 It is true that no where in the Code, there is definition of abuse of process of the Court, no where it is discussed. Simultaneously, explanation for securing the ends of justice is also not defined and therefore, every case has different facts and circumstances, but simultaneously, to arrive at true conclusion or to exercise the extraordinary powers, I have to rely on landmark decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts and therefore, before I come to the final merits of the petition, for exercising powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, I would like to discuss some landmark decisions on the subject: (a) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parbhatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat, 2017 (9) SCC 641 , following 10 principles are laid down, which are as under:- “(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inherent in the High Court. (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised: (a) to secure the ends of justice. (b) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised: (a) to secure the ends of justice. (b) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. (vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice. (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic wellbeing of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. Economic offences involving the financial and economic wellbeing of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” (b) Further, in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR 604, following 7 categories of cases had been laid down, which are as under:- “(i) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (ii) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (iii) where the allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (iv) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer, unless a Magistrate has issued an order for the same, as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (v) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd to the extent that no prudent man can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (vi) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vi) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide intention and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” (c) Further, in case of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, 1960 AIR 862, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a criminal proceeding against a person can be quashed if the case belongs to any one of the following classes: “1. Where there is a legal bar against institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings. 2. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute an offence, even if taken at face value and in their entirety. 3. Where the allegations made constitute an offence, but there is no evidence which can prove them.” 14. Pursuant to the provision under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code as well as pursuant to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it transpires that merely stating that the Applicant was not present at the time of raid and simultaneously, the house where the raid was made does not belong to Applicant, is not a sufficient ground to entertain this Application. Simultaneously the submission that the seized muddamal English liquor does not belong to the Applicant is also an aspect which can be decided and proceeded by concerned learned Trial Court. Not only that, but the investigation is also pending. At this juncture, this Court cannot appreciate the evidence only on the basis of FIR. Not only that but this Court is fully aware that the statement of co-accused has no evidentiary value but when the prosecution has come forward with the case that the Applicant was having liquor in his possession, which is in large quantity, that is to say English liquor. Simultaneously, in presence of the panchas the Applicant is arrested. Not only that but this Court is fully aware that the statement of co-accused has no evidentiary value but when the prosecution has come forward with the case that the Applicant was having liquor in his possession, which is in large quantity, that is to say English liquor. Simultaneously, in presence of the panchas the Applicant is arrested. Upon such premises this court is not agreed with the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the Applicant and it would not be an abuse of the process of law. Not only that but it is also not a convincing case of the Applicant that if the powers are not exercised by this court, in that case, there will not be the ends of justice. 15. Further the applicant has prayed impliedly Constitutional remedies before this Constitutional Court especially under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it would be appropriate to discuss in brief that only FIR is filed against the present applicant wherein remedies are very well available before the learned Trial Court, in case of charge-sheet is filed, applicant can file discharge application as well as applicant can very well defend his case before learned Trial Court. Therefore, whenever there is alternative efficacious remedy available with the applicant, applicant is not entitled for Constitutional remedies. 16. This Court has referred to decision of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another vs. Mathew K.C. in Civil Appeal No. 1281 of 2018 and S.L.P. (C) No. 24610 of 2015, judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed on 30.01.2018, held at paragraph no. 43 as under:- “43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.” 17. Further in landmark decision of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai in Civil Appeal No. 6110 of 2003 delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 07.08.2003 wherein from paragraph nos. 3 to 9 principles are laid down lastly held as under:- Though we have tried to laid down broad principles and working rules, the fact remains that the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution cannot be tied down in a straightjacket formula or rigid rules. Not less than often the High Court would be faced with dilemma. If it intervenes in pending proceedings there is bound to be delay in termination of proceedings. If it does not intervene, the error of the moment may earn immunity from correction. The facts and circumstances of a given case may make it more appropriate for the High Court to exercise self-restraint and not to intervene because the error of jurisdiction though committed is yet capable of being taken care of and corrected at a later stage and the wrong done, if any, would be set right and rights and equities adjusted in appeal or revision preferred at the conclusion of the proceedings. But there may be cases where “a stitch in time would save nine.” At the end, we may sum up by saying that the powers is there but the exercise is discretionary which will be governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the judge. 18. Upon such premises, it transpires that this is not a fit case to exercise extraordinary powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. 19. 18. Upon such premises, it transpires that this is not a fit case to exercise extraordinary powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. 19. Upon all such premises as per the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court and of this Court in fleri, the petition is devoid of merits and hence, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.