### Mere Call Detail Records Without Substantiating Transcripts Cannot Sustain a Charge of Criminal Conspiracy

On October 9, 2025, a complaint was lodged alleging that Seoni Police personnel intercepted a vehicle and unlawfully misappropriated Rs. 1,45,00,000 out of Rs. 2,96,50,000 being transported.

A preliminary inquiry implicated the petitioner, a police informer, on the grounds that he passed information regarding the cash to a constable (Pramod Soni), who informed a DSP (Pankaj Mishra), who then informed the main accused, SDOP Pooja Pandey.

The petitioner was charged under Sections 310(2) (Dacoity), 126(2) (Wrongful Restraint), 140(3) (Kidnapping), 61(2) (Criminal Conspiracy), and 238(b) (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The prosecution's case against the petitioner relied almost exclusively on Call Detail Records (CDR) indicating telephonic contact with the co-accused.

1. Whether the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of seeking discharge before the Trial Court bars the High Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

2. Whether mere telephonic contact evidenced by Call Detail Records (CDR), without evidence of the content of the conversation or meeting of minds, is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy.

3. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner based solely on suspicion constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

Principle from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, establishing that proceedings should be quashed if allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute an offence.

Doctrine from Prafulla Kumar Samal v. Union of India, which holds that while a court can sift evidence to see if a prima facie case exists, it must discharge the accused if the material gives rise only to "suspicion" rather than "grave suspicion".

Section 61(2) of the BNS, noting that a "meeting of minds" is a sine qua non for the offence of criminal conspiracy.

The Court observed that the petitioner was not part of the raiding party, was not present at the spot, and no recovery of money was made from him.

The prosecution relied solely on CDRs, which prove the factum of communication but not the substance or "meeting of minds" required for conspiracy under Section 61(2) BNS.

The Court reasoned that acting as an informer by passing information regarding suspicious cash movement is part of a citizen's duty and does not imply dishonest intent.

The Court found no evidence linking the petitioner to the overt acts of kidnapping, dacoity, or wrongful restraint.

Following the Bhajanal Lal and Prafulla Kumar Samal precedents, the Court determined that the evidence created mere suspicion rather than the "grave suspicion" necessary to frame charges, rendering the continuation of trial an exercise in futility and an abuse of process.

CDRs without call transcripts or supporting evidence cannot establish criminal conspiracy.

The petition was allowed, and the FIR (Crime No. 473/2025), charge-sheet, and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner were quashed; the petitioner was discharged from all charges.