Quashing jurisdiction cannot resolve disputed facts or assess evidence where a prima facie case exists.

The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No. 271/2022 registered at Police Station Omti, Jabalpur, for offences under Section 4-A of the Public Gambling Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, together with RCT No. 3482/2023 and consequential proceedings.

The prosecution alleged that, pursuant to secret information regarding the storage of proceeds from betting activities, the police raided the premises of co-accused Ajeet Goga and Aakash Goga and seized two bags containing ₹23,00,000/-.

During investigation, statements and other material allegedly indicated the petitioner’s involvement in the betting network, resulting in his inclusion as an accused in the charge-sheet filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur.

The petitioner contended that his implication was based primarily on memorandums of co-accused persons; that there was no independent, financial, electronic, or recovery-based evidence connecting him with the alleged offence; and that he had not visited India since 14 March 2020.

He also challenged the registration of FIR Nos. 270/2022 and 271/2022 within a short interval, alleged discrepancies in the FIR, absence of a diary entry concerning secret information, and the credibility of an independent witness.

The State opposed quashing, submitting that the FIR, case diary, and investigation material disclosed a prima facie case and that the petitioner’s objections raised disputed questions of fact requiring consideration at trial.

Whether the FIR, charge-sheet, and material collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner warranting continuation of proceedings under Sections 4-A of the Public Gambling Act and 120-B of the IPC?

Whether the High Court, exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, could adjudicate the reliability of co-accused memorandums, the absence of recovery or electronic evidence, the petitioner’s alleged absence from India, FIR discrepancies, and witness credibility?

Whether the alleged failure to establish the ingredients of Section 4-A of the Public Gambling Act justified quashing the proceedings at the threshold?

The Court applied Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, under which inherent jurisdiction is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

At the quashing stage, the Court is required to determine only whether the allegations and investigation material disclose a prima facie offence; it must not conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence, determine the probability of conviction, or conduct a mini-trial.

The Court considered the principles governing quashing laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P., Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, and Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, namely that interference is warranted only in exceptional cases where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose an offence, or where the prosecution is manifestly mala fide or otherwise falls within recognised categories for quashing.

The Court also considered Section 4-A of the Public Gambling Act and Section 120-B of the IPC in assessing whether the prosecution material disclosed alleged gambling-related dissemination and conspiracy/association offences.

The Court held that the prosecution case was not confined to the petitioner’s physical presence at the raided premises. The alleged recovery of ₹23,00,000/- from co-accused persons, together with other material collected during investigation and the petitioner’s inclusion in the charge-sheet, was sufficient at the threshold to require consideration by the criminal court.

The reliability and evidentiary value of the co-accused memorandums, the petitioner’s alleged association with the betting network, and the sufficiency of the material to establish conspiracy were matters of evidence.

The petitioner’s asserted absence from India, lack of recovery, non-claiming of the seized money, absence of electronic evidence, alleged FIR errors, timing of the two FIRs, absence of a diary entry, and challenge to the independent witness concerned disputed factual and evidentiary issues which could not be conclusively determined under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Similarly, the alleged non-fulfilment of Section 4-A of the Public Gambling Act was held to be a matter appropriately considered at the stage of framing of charge and, thereafter, upon appreciation of evidence, rather than a basis for quashing the proceedings.

Since the material did not render the prosecution inherently absurd, impossible, or demonstrably mala fide, interference under the exceptional Bhajan Lal principles was not justified.

The petition under Section 528 of the BNSS was therefore dismissed, and the FIR, RCT No. 3482/2023, and consequential proceedings were not quashed.

The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available contentions—including his alleged absence from India, absence of recovery or electronic evidence, witness credibility, FIR discrepancies, and applicability of Section 4-A of the Public Gambling Act—before the trial court at the appropriate stage.

The Court clarified that its observations would not prejudice either party before the trial court.