Co-accused's uncorroborated memorandum statement without discovery of facts cannot sustain criminal prosecution.

The Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar, conducted a raid on 29.04.2025, apprehending Hariram Verma for allegedly writing betting slips (Satta-Patti).

During investigation, Verma’s custodial memorandum statement implicated the petitioner, Rajnarayan Sahu, alleging that the petitioner managed the gambling operations for a commission.

Based solely on this statement, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused and a chargesheet was filed under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022.

The petitioner’s application for discharge under Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 15.01.2026, and a subsequent criminal revision was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 04.02.2026.

The petitioner challenged these orders, asserting a history of malicious prosecution and procedural illegalities, including the recording of his memorandum statement prior to his formal arrest.

1. Whether a criminal prosecution can be sustained solely on the basis of a co-accused’s custodial memorandum statement in the absence of independent corroboration or discovery of facts.

2. Whether the procedural discrepancy regarding the timing of the arrest and the recording of the memorandum statement vitiates the investigation.

3. Whether the facts of the case meet the criteria for quashing criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

The Court primarily relied on the guidelines established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which permit the quashing of proceedings if the allegations, even if accepted, do not constitute an offence or if the prosecution is maliciously instituted.

It applied the "sterling quality" evidence test from Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh to determine if the material could reasonably lead to conviction.

The Court reaffirmed the principle that a memorandum or confessional statement of a co-accused is not substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis for implication unless it results in the discovery of a fact.

Additionally, it cited Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand and Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. to emphasize that criminal proceedings must not be used as weapons of harassment.

The Court found that the prosecution's case against the petitioner was built entirely upon the custodial statement of co-accused Hariram Verma.

It noted that no recovery of incriminating material or independent evidence—such as Call Detail Records (CDR) or witness testimony—was produced to connect the petitioner to the alleged crime or the gaming house.

The Court highlighted a critical procedural lapse: the petitioner's arrest memo was timed at 11:00 AM, whereas his memorandum statement was purportedly recorded at 10:30 AM on the same day, rendering the statement legally unsustainable and the investigation suspect.

Furthermore, the Court observed a pattern of "targeted harassment," noting that the petitioner had a history of clean acquittals in similar cases and that a prior FIR against him had been quashed by the High Court for being frivolous.

Consequently, the Court determined that the essential ingredients of Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022, were not prima facie established.

It held that a custodial statement of a co-accused, without independent corroboration or discovery of fact, is insufficient to sustain a prosecution.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 0425/2025, the chargesheet, and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner.