State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor v. Connected

Judgment

1. In both petitions, petitioner is one and same person, against whom charge-sheet for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B and 144/188 of IPC and Sections 19/54, 16/54, 54-D of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 has been submitted along with total 15

accused persons after investigation in the FIR No. 48/2023 registered at Police Station Sanganer Sadar, Jaipur City (South) and another charge-sheet for offences under Sections 16/54, 54-D of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 along with total 14 accused persons, has been submitted after investigation in FIR No. [2025:RJ-JP:38000] (2 of 11) [CRLMP-394/2024] 49/2023 registered at Police Station Sanganer Sadar, Jaipur City (South). After submission of both charge-sheets by Police before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 17, Sanganer, District Jaipur, petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023) by filing these two separate Criminal Misc. Petitions, seeking to quash both FIRs along with proceedings commenced thereupon by the Police including the charge-sheets, qua petitioner.

2. Heard counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

3. The contention of counsel for petitioner is that petitioner is a student and preparing for competitive examinations, who is an innocent person and has no nexus with the raid by the special Police team on the factory premises where illicit liquor was found to be manufactured and stored. Her further submissions is that the persons who were found at site at the time of raid were caught by Police red handed and FIRs were registered. Thereafter during investigation, it transpired that one Mr. Ravi, who happens to be brother of petitioner, is main accused and culprit for doing all of such illegal deeds of manufacturing and storing illegal liquor, he was also arrested, but as far as petitioner is concerned, he has falsely been implicated in the impugned FIRs merely being brother of accused Ravi and on the basis of confessional statement/ enquiry note, prepared by the Police during police custody of petitioner. Further contention of counsel for petitioner is that in the investigation, no direct evidence against petitioner has been collected, to connect him with the alleged offences in the impugned FIRs and implicating the petitioner only on the basis of [2025:RJ-JP:38000] (3 of 11) [CRLMP-394/2024] his confessional statements is ex facie illegal. Her submission is that the confessional statements of an accused, are not admissible in evidence in view of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, hence, the prosecution of petitioner for alleged offences on the basis of such an inadmissible evidence would be an abuse of process of law and will ruin the entire carrier and future of petitioner for no good reason, therefore, a prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner that both FIRs along with charge-sheets submitted by the Police therein before the Judicial Magistrate, be quashed at the nascent stage, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the High Court to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law.

4. Counsel for petitioner has referred and relied upon the following judgments:- Judgment dated 29.01.2025 delivered by the 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vinobhai Vs. State of Kerala (Criminal Appeal No. 1730 of 2017) [AIR 2025 SC 845]. 2. Judgment dated 11.08.2023 delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Manoj Kumar Soni Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1030/2023) [AIR 2023 SC 3857]. 3. Order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in case of Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 8597/2022). 4. Order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in case of Atma Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 2724/2021. 5. Order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in case of Bhanwar Singh Hada Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2303/2010). Order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the Rajasthan 6. High Court at Jodhpur in case of Papu Singh Vs. State (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 2115/2020). [2025:RJ-JP:38000] (4 of 11) [CRLMP-394/2024]

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed both the petitions and separate reply to both petitions have been filed praying to dismiss the petitions. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that during investigation in the FIR No. 49/2023, material evidence from the possession of petitioner, including four registers and a copy maintaining accounts of sale-purchase of illicit liquor and cash amount of Rs. 6 lakhs from selling illicit liquor etc., were recovered.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that petitioner was also found in conspiracies with the other accused persons, who were caught red handed on site with his brother Ravi, who is main accused in both FIRs, hence, petitioner was arrested firstly in FIR No. 49/2023 and during custody in FIR No. 48/2023 as well.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is not correct to state that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner, and he has been made accused only on the basis of his confessional statements. He submits that petitioner has been implicated having conspiracy, connection and involvement with the other accused persons, and after thorough investigation, charge-sheet in both FIRs against petitioner as well as other accused persons have been submitted.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that at this stage, the High Court was loath in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to make evaluation of the evidence and material available in the charge- sheet available against the petitioner as no mini trial at the stage of seeking quashing of FIR/charge-sheet is supposed to be conducted by the High Court. [2025:RJ-JP:38000] (5 of 11) [CRLMP-394/2024]

9. As far as evidential value of confessional statement of accused or implicating any person as accused, on the basis of statements of co-accused is concerned, same is the issue to be considered and decided after recording evidence of parties, that too after appreciation of other evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court. Hence, at this stage, FIRs impugned as also the charge-sheet submitted by the Police after investigation therein may not be quashed and both petitions are liable to be dismissed.

10. The proposition of law in respect of quashing of FIR/charge- sheet by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction and extra ordinary jurisdiction vested by virtue of Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023) is no more res integra, and it is also equally well established principle of law that such powers and jurisdiction must be exercised with all care and caution, sparingly and in rarest of rare cases and not ordinarily. Few of the illustrations/ guidelines to exercise such powers by the High Court to quash the FIR/criminal proceedings at nascent stage have been prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in celebrated and off- quoted judgment delivered in case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335]. It has been expounded therein that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/ or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motives for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudges, such criminal proceedings may be allowed to be quashed. [2025:RJ-JP:38000] (6 of 11) [CRLMP-394/2024]

11. In case of N. Soundaram vs. P.K. Pounraj [2014 (10) SCC 616] the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that inherent powers by the High Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed and held that the High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complainant as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that at this stage, the High Court cannot analyze and meticulously consider the evidence to anticipate that whether such an evidence would be sufficient or not to end up in conviction or acquittal of accused. The judgment of the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, declining to interfere with the proceedings and to quash the final report/charge-sheet submitted by the Police.

12. In case of State represented by Inspector of Police Vs. M. Maridoss & Anr. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 25], the Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed and reiterated the principles expounded in case of Bhajan Lal (supra) as also in case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra [2021 (19) SCC 401], and affirmed the proposition of law that criminal proceedings ought not be scuttled at the initial stage and a mini trial by the High Court is not warranted to be conducted to draw a conclusion that no criminal case is made out against the accused on evaluation of the evidence available against him or collected by the Investigation agency. It was held that [2025:RJ-JP:38000] (7 of 11) [CRLMP-394/2024] undoubtedly powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are wide enough, but same should be exercised with circumspection and diligently.

13. In the present cases at hand, it is true that petitioner is not named in the FIRs yet, it is apparent that both FIRs came to be registered by Police when a special constituted team of Police made a raid in the factory premises on receiving an information of manufacturing and storage of unauthorized and illicit liquor. During investigation in the FIRs, on the basis of connecting and linking evidence, petitioner’s brother Ravi was found to be one of the main accused behind all these illegal activities in the factory premises and petitioner was also found involved in the alleged offences.

14. In FIR No. 48/2023, petitioner has been charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B, 144/188 IPC and Sections 19/54, 16/54 and 54-D of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 and in FIR No. 49/2023, petitioner has been charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 16/54, 54-D of the Rajasthan Excise Act,

1950. In charge-sheet, apart from petitioner, several other accused persons, have also been charge-sheeted out of whom few were nabbed at the spot and few others including petitioner’s brother, were found to have close connection with the alleged offences. From the conscious possession of petitioner, relevant and material evidence to connect him with the alleged offences were seized including the record of accounts and cash amount, therefore, considering the nature of offences, more so, offences under Section 120B IPC and Section 54-D of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, it is difficult to observe at this stage that petitioner has [2025:RJ-JP:38000] (8 of 11) [CRLMP-394/2024] been implicated only on the basis of his confessional statements and there is no other connecting evidence. The conclusion of charge-sheet may not be believed at this stage. Any observation by the High Court on merits at this stage, would be pre-mature as the evidential value of the confessional statements of accused may be better appreciated and examined by the trial Court, during course of trial after recording the other admissible and contemporary evidence.

14. In the judgment of Vinobhai (supra), whereupon counsel for petitioner has relied upon, the Hon’ble Supreme Court taking into consideration the judgment delivered in case of Manoj Kumar Soni (supra), in respect of evidential value of recovery made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was held that “A doubt looms: can disclosure statement per se, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, be deemed adequate to secure a conviction? We find it implausible. Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, in our opinion, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt.” (emphasis added). Therefore, in our view, the appellant’s guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Such judgment was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding a criminal appeal against conviction of an accused for offences punishable under Section 302 IPC, who was convicted by the trial Court solely on the basis of evidence of recovery of weapons and on the basis of confessional statements, therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such a conviction is not [2025:RJ-JP:38000] (9 of 11) [CRLMP-394/2024] sustainable in law and conviction was set aside. Thus, referring to the two judgments of the Apex Court by the counsel for petitioner is misplaced in these petitions for quashing of FIRs and charge- sheets at the initial stage.

15. In case of Suresh Kumar (supra) passed by the Coordinate Bench of this High Court at Jodhpur, whereupon counsel for petitioner has relied upon, the Coordinate Bench followed the judgment of another Coordinate Bench delivered in case of Papu Singh (supra) and quashed the charge-sheet submitted against the petitioner for offences under Section 16, 19/54 A of the Rajasthan Excise Act with a fact finding that only piece of evidence against the petitioner is the custodial statement of co accused and there is no direct evidence showing petitioner’s involvement in transportation of illicit liquor. In that case there was no recovery from the petitioner whereas in the cases at hand, apart from recovery of articles from the petitioner, investigation agency found the involvement of petitioner in the alleged offences and after thorough investigation, petitioner was charge-sheeted for the alleged offences along with other several accused persons, including for offences under Section 120B of IPC and Section 54-D of the Rajasthan Excise Act. Thus, the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench do not support the case of petitioner for quashing of impugned charge-sheets.

16. In case of Atma Ram (supra), facts of case before the Coordinate Bench of the Rajasthan High Court were entirely different as therein the vehicle, filled with excise articles liquor, met with an accident and driver of vehicle died on the spot, hence, the owners of vehicle were implicated in the FIR registered for [2025:RJ-JP:38000] (10 of 11) [CRLMP-394/2024] offences under Section 19/54 and 54-D of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. On the statements of registered owner of vehicle that illicit liquor was purchased out of the fund financed by the petitioner, the petitioner, was implicated. There was neither any kind of financial transaction by the petitioner with owners of vehicles nor any kind of other direct evidence against him was available, hence, in such peculiar circumstances, the Coordinate Bench quashed the FIR qua petitioner. From the factual matrix and evidence available against petitioner in the present cases, charge- sheets against the petitioner are not liable to be quashed following this judgment.

17. In case of Bhanwar Singh Hada (supra) the facts of case were that after investigation negative final report was submitted by the Police, however, the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance for offences under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 against the petitioner which came to be questioned before the High Court. The High Court opined that cognizance has been taken by the Judicial Magistrate merely on the basis that petitioner was standing outside of the house where the raid was made by the Police and illicit liquor was recovered and on seeing the Police team, petitioner fled away from the scene. There was no other evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence, hence, the High Court quashed the order of cognizance. Thus, the factual matrix in the case of Bhanwar Singh Hada (supra), was entirely different than the facts of present case, hence, such judgment does not support the case of petitioner for quashing the impugned charge-sheets. [2025:RJ-JP:38000] (11 of 11) [CRLMP-394/2024]

18. As a final result, this Court does not find that case of petitioner falls within purview of rarest of rare case. On the basis of evidence of recovery from petitioner, made by the investigation agency and the findings of involvement of the petitioner in the present two FIRs, it may not be held that involvement of petitioner is false, or malicious or without any foundational basis, hence, this Court does not find the case of petitioner to be an exceptional and suitable case to quash the impugned FIRs, investigation carried on thereupon and submission of charge- sheets against petitioner, hence, such a prayer made in these petitions is hereby dismissed.

19. However, it is made clear that dismissal of these petitions will not preclude the petitioner to make his submissions before the trial Court seeking to discharge him at the time of framing charges and the trial Court may consider the case of petitioner for discharge or framing charge in accordance with law without being influenced by dismissal of these petitions.

20. Therefore, with aforesaid observations, both criminal misc. petitions stand dismissed.

21. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. NITIN /172-173 (SUDESH BANSAL),J