The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the authority to quash an FIR if the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused, as per the guidelines for quashing of FIR.

ORDER :

Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J.

1. The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR registered at Crime No. 553/2019 at Police Station Kolar, Distt. Bhopal and also prays for dismissal of all the proceedings emanating thereto.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that Police after receiving tip off that one Naresh Hemnani was made facility for playing gambling of IPL Cricket Match between Delhi Capital Vs. Kings-11 on mobile phone and received amount for gambling online from the public. Police raided the house of Naresh Hemnani situated at C-2/3, Netaji Hills Colony, Kolar and on search found one mobile phone having online gambling application LIVE 365 EXCHANGE which was on and booking for gambling was continued. He (Naresh Hemnani) also received some cash amount from the different-different customers. Police seized mobile phones, amount of Rs. 56,56,700/- and also some diaries having transaction of gambling. Police after taking Naresh Hemnani in custody, interrogated him and he furnished information that he along with other co-accused-Jai Prakash Madhani was doing this gambling.

3. Police along with Naresh Hemnani went to the house of Jai Prakash Madhani situated at 18, Neelkanth Colony, near Gurudwara, Idgah Hills, Shahjahanabad, Bhopal and started searching, seized Rs. 5,58,260/- in connection with gambling. Police arrested both the accused and released them on bail and after returning to Police Station, lodged Crime No. 553/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 4A of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 and started investigation. Naresh Hemnani furnished information that his brother-in-law i.e. applicant herein resided in Dubai having a friendship with Ankit Baryani who is having gambling application and with the help of applicant sent application link LIVE 365 EXCHANGE in the mobile phone of Naresh Hemnani. Police after issuing look out circular, arrested the applicant who furnished information and on the basis of information, registered case against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 3 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 and later on, arrested Ankit Baryani who furnished information and on that basis also registered a case against Ankit Baryani.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that nothing incriminating evidence has been collected during investigation in regard to the present applicant. No doubt, the applicant is the brother-in-law of Naresh Hemnani. He neither received any amount and nor involved in sending application for gambling. Ankit Baryani is the near relative of the applicant who directly sent link to Naresh Hemnani and Naresh Hemnani started gambling on that link. Neither any mobile of the applicant having application LIVE 365 EXCHANGE for gambling nor any amount in connection with gambling has been seized from the possession of the applicant. No ingredients of any offence are made out against the applicant. In these premises, he prays to quash the FIR so far it relates to present applicant.

5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submits that Naresh Hemnani categorically stated against the applicant. The applicant introduced Naresh Hemnani to Ankit Baryani who sent online linked and forwarded user ID and password for gambling and Ankit Baryani received 70% amount through the applicant and Naresh Hemnani, Jai Prakash Madhani received 30% of the gambling amount. Thus, sufficient evidence is available on record, therefore, prays for dismissal of this petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary of Crime No. 553/2019 registered at Police Station, Kolar for the offence punishable under Section 3 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867. Written objection has been filed by the State sent by the concerned Investigating Officer to the Office of Advocate General. In the information furnished by the Naresh Hemnani, he stated that he is financially we