### Mere Telephonic Contact Without Content or Conspiratorial Agreement Insufficient for Criminal Liability Under Inherent Powers.

On October 9, 2025, a complainant alleged that Seoni Police personnel intercepted a vehicle and robbed Rs. 1,45,00,000 from a total of Rs. 2,96,50,000 being transported as suspected hawala money

A preliminary inquiry led to the registration of FIR Crime No. 473/2025 against several officials, including SDOP Pooja Pandey

The petitioner, a Constable at the Crime Branch, Jabalpur, was implicated as a co-conspirator for allegedly passing information from an informer to the main accused via a middleman

The petitioner sought quashment of the FIR and charge-sheet, arguing he was not part of the raiding party and that the case against him was based solely on Call Detail Records (CDR) without substantive evidence of conspiracy

1. Whether the existence of an alternative remedy of seeking discharge before a Trial Court operates as an absolute bar to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS

2. Whether mere telephonic contact established via Call Detail Records (CDR), in the absence of conversation transcripts or meeting of minds, is sufficient to sustain a charge of criminal conspiracy

3. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to an abuse of the process of law when no overt act is attributed to him

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

Section 482 of the CrPC regarding the quashing of proceedings to prevent abuse of process

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, establishing that proceedings may be quashed if the FIR/charge-sheet allegations, taken at face value, do not disclose an offence

Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, holding that where material gives rise only to suspicion rather than "grave suspicion," an accused should not be compelled to face trial

Sections 61(2) (Criminal Conspiracy), 140(3), 310(2), 126(2), and 238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The Court observed that the petitioner was not present at the scene of the crime, nor was he a member of the raiding party

The prosecution's case rested entirely on CDRs showing calls between the petitioner, an informer, and a co-accused

The Court reasoned that CDRs only establish the factum of communication, not the substance or intent; without transcripts or recordings, they cannot prove a "meeting of minds"—a sine qua non for conspiracy under Section 61(2) BNS

The Court noted the petitioner had actually informed his superior officer shortly after receiving the tip-off, which suggested a bona fide discharge of duty rather than criminal intent

None of the witnesses or co-accused implicated the petitioner in the actual robbery or misappropriation of funds

The Court found the allegations under Sections 140(3), 310(2), and 126(2) BNS to be "too remote and disconnected" as the petitioner committed no overt acts

It concluded that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot replace legal proof

The FIR bearing Crime No. 473/2025 and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner were quashed