Co-accused's disclosure statements and uncorroborated financial transactions are insufficient to sustain criminal prosecution.

On February 7, 2023, the Crime Branch, Gwalior, conducted a raid at Shri Krishna Dhaba following a tip-off regarding the leakage of the ANM (Auxiliary Nurse Midwife) recruitment examination paper

Several individuals were caught solving the paper for candidates in exchange for money; however, the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor apprehended at the spot

The petitioner was arrested on April 4, 2023, based on a disclosure statement (memorandum) recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by a co-accused

The prosecution alleged the petitioner’s involvement based on the seizure of a laptop and bank transfers received from co-accused Tarunesh Kumar Arjariya

The petitioner contended that the laptop seizure lacked independent corroboration and the bank transfers were legitimate rent payments for a property leased to the co-accused under a notarized agreement

A supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner on May 22, 2023

1. Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) for lack of substantive evidence

2. Whether a memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and explained financial transactions are sufficient to sustain a prosecution for criminal conspiracy and cheating

The court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) regarding the inherent power of the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of law

It relied on Section 27 of the Evidence Act, noting that disclosure statements are limited to the discovery of a fact and cannot serve as substantive evidence

The court cited Ravishankar Tandon v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024 INSC 299), which held that a confessional statement of an accused cannot be the sole basis for proceeding against another in the absence of independent corroborative evidence

It further analyzed the ingredients of Sections 420, 120-B, and 201 of the IPC, and Section 66 of the IT Act

The court observed that the petitioner’s implication was based entirely on the statements of co-accused persons, which carry no substantive evidentiary weight

It found that the prosecution failed to demonstrate a forensic or technical link between the petitioner and the leaked examination material despite the seizure of electronic devices

Regarding the financial transactions, the court noted that the petitioner provided a cogent explanation involving a notarized rent agreement, which the Investigating Agency failed to investigate or discredit

The court reasoned that mere acquaintance or incidental financial dealings with a co-accused do not constitute a "meeting of minds" necessary for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC

Since no candidates or independent witnesses identified the petitioner, the court concluded that the essential ingredients of cheating and disappearance of evidence were conspicuously absent

The High Court quashed the FIR dated February 7, 2023 (Crime No. 15/2023), and all consequential proceedings, including the charge-sheets and supplementary charge-sheets, specifically in relation to the petitioner