Prashant Cheddilal Daharwal vs State of Maharashtra

[AIROnline 2026 Bom 144]

Core Legal Questions

The primary issue before the Court was whether an FIR and charge-sheet can be

sustained solely on the basis of a co-accused’s statement and Call Detail Records

(CDR), and whether such material discloses a prima facie case warranting

prosecution.

Court’s Observations

The High Court reiterated settled principles governing quashing:

At the stage of quashing, the Court examines whether the material on record prima facie

connects the accused with the offence.

In the present case the applicant was not named by any independent witness and was not

present at the scene. The prosecution case rested only on:

• statement of co-accused, and

• CDR records.

The Court held Statement of co-accused is not substantive evidence and cannot be the sole

basis of prosecution. CDR evidence, in absence of corroboration, is insufficient to

establish involvement.

Applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court found that

Even if the allegations are accepted, no offence is made out against the applicant.

Accordingly, the proceedings were quashed.

Legal Significance

This decision reinforces important jurisprudential principles:

• Mere implication during investigation is insufficient without independent

evidence.

• Co-accused statements require corroboration and cannot independently sustain

prosecution.

• CDR records are only corroborative in nature.

• Strengthens the scope of quashing jurisdiction where prosecution is based on weak

or inadmissible material.

The ruling is particularly significant for cases where the accused is implicated only through disclosure statements and digital traces without direct evidence.