Prosecution must be based on cogent evidence; mere allegations without substantial proof do not justify criminal proceedings.

ORDER

Pleadings are complete. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. This petition has been filed invoking the inherent powers provided to the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.170/2022 at Police Station Madan Mahal, District Jabalpur, for the offence punishable under Section 4(a) of Public Gambling Act , 1867 and Sections 109, 112, 114, 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also the further proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto.

3. The quashing of FIR and further proceedings is being claimed saying that no offence is made out against the present petitioner as no material is available with the prosecution connecting the present petitioner with the alleged crime. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that merely because the brother of the present petitioner was found involved in several crimes and offence registered against him, the present petitioner has been maliciously added in the crime as it is clear from the available material and also from the language used in the FIR itself.

4. As per the facts of the case and the story narrated by the prosecution, on 23.04.2022, an information was received by the police about gambling activities in the territory coming under Police Station Madan Mahal and as such, the police officers conducted a raid in a house from there two persons namely, Sunil Thakur and Deepak Patel were apprehended. The police in the said raid has seized some of the mobiles. According to the prosecution, these mobiles were being used in a cricket betting. A register, calculator and cash amounting to Rs.1790/- were also seized by the police.

As per the statement of the person arrested from the house i.e. Sunil Thakur, they were conducting betting activities of cricket match on behalf of Azam Sheikh and Nikki Jain. As per the FIR, only two persons were found in the house where betting of IPL match was being done but later on, the name of present petitioner was also added as an accused despite the fact that nothing was available with the prosecution to implicate him in the alleged crime. According to the petitioner, it is nothing but an abuse of process of law because the prosecution initiated against the petitioner is malicious and as such, the same can be quashed.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369 ( Vineet Kumar and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another ), (2005) 1 SCC 122 ( Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and another ) and also upon an order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.44713 of 2023 (Sanjay Khatri and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others).

6. Per contra, Shri Alok Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, read over the case diary and submitted that during the course of investigation, statement/memorandum of the accused persons was recorded in which they have taken the name of the present petitioner and, therefore, his name has been added in the array of accused and offence was also registered against him. He has submitted that the police during the course of investigation has collected the record relating to the bank accounts which itself makes it clear that the forged bank accounts have been opened in the name of Cell Companies which are completely forged accounts and amount has been transferred in those accounts, in which, the present petitioner was also involved. One of the co-accused namely Manoj Kumar Sanpal, in his statement has taken the name of the present petitioner. Therefore, according to Shri Agnihotri, in the present case, interference is not warranted and the FIR cannot be quashed.

7. In response to the submissions made by the counsel for the State, the counsel for the petitioner has subm