Inherent jurisdiction cannot quash prosecution where charge-sheet material raises triable factual and evidentiary issues.

On 23.05.2022, Police Station Omti, Jabalpur, allegedly received secret information regarding an organised betting syndicate. A raid resulted in the alleged recovery of ₹23,02,990/- and two mobile phones from co-accused Sanjay Khatri and Murlidhar Khatri. During investigation, the petitioner, Satish Sanpal, was allegedly implicated through memorandums of the co-accused and was included as an accused in Column No. 12 of the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet was filed in connection with FIR No. 258/2022 for offences under Section 4-A of the Public Gambling Act and Section 120-B IPC, and RCT No. 6002/2023 was instituted

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He contended that he was not present at the spot, no recovery was made from him, he had not visited India since 14.03.2020, and there was no independent financial, electronic or other material connecting him with the alleged betting activities.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner’s contentions involved disputed questions of fact and appreciation of evidence, which could not be examined in proceedings for quashing after filing of the charge-sheet.

1. Whether the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS on the ground that his implication was based principally on co-accused memorandums and was unsupported by recovery or independent incriminating material?

2. Whether the petitioner’s absence from India, the alleged non-availability of a roznamcha/DD entry concerning the secret information, and the alleged deficiencies in the electronic and forensic material justified quashing of the prosecution at the threshold?

3. Whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, disclosed the essential ingredients of offences under Section 4-A of the Public Gambling Act and Section 120-B IPC so as to require the matter to proceed to trial?

The Court applied Section 528 BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. The power is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly; at the quashing stage, the Court examines whether the allegations and material collected during investigation, taken at face value, disclose an offence, but it cannot conduct a mini-trial or assess the reliability and probative value of disputed evidence.

The Court also considered Section 4-A of the Public Gambling Act and Section 120-B IPC, observing that the petitioner’s alleged role, knowledge, intention and connection with the betting network were matters requiring evidentiary assessment.

The principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P., (2017) 13 SCC 369; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122; and Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, AIR 1988 SC 709, were recognised as governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction, but not as authorising determination of disputed factual issues at the threshold.

The Court held that the petitioner’s objections—absence of recovery, reliance on co-accused memorandums, lack of a directly attributable mobile number or chat, alleged absence from India, non-availability of a DD entry, and the credibility of the independent witness—primarily concerned the evidentiary value and reliability of the prosecution material.

Recovery from every accused was not considered indispensable for examining an allegation of conspiracy or participation in organised betting, and the petitioner’s plea of being abroad was treated as a defence requiring proof before the trial Court.

Similarly, the alleged procedural omission regarding the secret information and the witness’s alleged involvement in other cases did not, without more, establish a complete absence of foundational material or a demonstrable failure of justice.

Since the charge-sheet material was not wholly irrelevant or incapable of connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences, determining whether it ultimately proved the ingredients of Sections 4-A of the Public Gambling Act and 120-B IPC would require a trial and could not be undertaken under Section 528 BNSS.

The petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 258/2022, RCT No. 6002/2023, the charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings was therefore dismissed.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the quashing petition and would not influence the trial Court’s independent assessment of the merits or evidence.