Quashing of FIRs at investigation stage rejected where alleged clandestine liquor supply supported cognizable offences and IPC conspiracy principles.

Gujarat HC refused to quash FIRs against Daman-based liquor licence holders at the investigation stage, holding that alleged clandestine supply of liquor into Gujarat disclosed cognizable offences warranting inquiry. The Court considered that abetment and conspiracy provisions of the IPC can apply alongside a special or local prohibition law, and that police may investigate where material suggests such conduct. It found no statutory bar merely because the licences were held in Daman, and held that the case did not fall within the narrow category of matters to be quashed at the threshold. The applicants were left to pursue challenge at a later stage if the evidence remained legally insufficient.

---

---

Issues: Whether the First Information Reports registered in Gujarat against Daman-based liquor licence holders could be quashed at the investigation stage on the ground that the Bombay Prohibition Act had no application in Daman and that no offence under the Indian Penal Code or the prohibition law was made out.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed that liquor consignments were allegedly supplied from Daman into Gujarat in a clandestine manner, and the investigation was at a nascent stage. The legal position considered was that offences under a special or local law can attract abetment and conspiracy provisions of the Indian Penal Code, and that the police are empowered to investigate cognizable offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court held that the statutory scheme did not bar prosecution merely because the licence holders operated in Daman, and that the materials collected so far were sufficient to justify continuation of investigation. The case was found not to fall within the categories warranting quashing at the threshold.

Conclusion: The prayer to quash the First Information Reports was rejected, and the applicants were relegated to the remedy of challenge at a later stage if no legal evidence emerged apart from co-accused statements.

---