Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Sanpal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 May, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
MCRC-5562-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 6th OF MAY, 2025
M.Cr.C. No.5562 of 2025
SANJAY SANPAL
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
................................................................................................................................................
Appearance :
Shri Madhur Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Alok Agnihotri - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
................................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 06.05.2025
Pronounced on : 20.05.2025
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
MCRC-5562-2025
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.
MCRC-5562-2025
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 submitted that the case with regard to
forming a Cell Company had been tried by the trial court and the
judgment has also been pronounced on 23.01.2024 in which the witness
MCRC-5562-2025
namely, Manoj Kumar Sanpal, was also an accused and the accused
persons have been acquitted because the prosecution failed to establish
any case and could not produce any cogent material so as to prove the
charge levelled against the accused.
8. I have heard the rival submissions made by the counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
9. For deciding the case, first it is necessary to see the contents of
FIR No.170/2022, which are as under:-
"मै थाना मदनमहल मे उनि के पद पर पदस्थ हूं आईपीएल के चल रहे मैच में
अवैध रूप से सट्टा खिलाने की सूचना पर तस्दीक हेतु थाना प्रभारी महोदय के
हमराह प्र.आर. 1913 सतेन्द्र, आर. 1314 सतीष दुबे एवं क्राईम ब्रांच स्टाफ
सउनि धनंजय सिंह आर. 1731 मोहित, आर. 840 खेमचन्द, आर. 2069 वीरे न्द्र
एवं सायबर स्टाफ आर. 406 अभिषेक, आर. 1912 आदित्य के साथ विश्वसनीय
मुखबिर की सूचना के आधार पर विधिवत तर्च वारं ट लेकर गवाहान अंकु र
डांगौर के साथ होम साईस कालेज के सामने वाली गली दीपिका कोचिंग
क्लाक्षेत के आगे तीसरे घर पर पहुंचा मौके पर आईपीएल मैच पर रूपये पैसे
की हार जीत का दाव लगाकर सट्टा संचालित करते हुये दीपक पटेल पिता स्व.
जगदीश पटेल उम्र 52 वर्ष निवासी फु टाताल एवं नकान मालीक सुनील ठाकु र
पिता स्व. राजू ठाकु र उम्र 38 साल पता होमसाईस कालेज के पास मिले जिनसे
नौके पर मुताबिच जप्ती पत्रक के लाल पुस्तिका जिस पर सिंघई पेपर मार्ट
लिखा है जिसमे सट्टे का लाखो रूपये के लेन देन का हिसाब किताब, तीन
मोबाईल दो सेमसंग कम्पनी के व एक एमआई कम्पनी का तथा एक टी. बी.
ओनिडा कम्पनी की, एक सेटाप बक्स, एक के ल्कु लेटर, एक पल्सर गाडी एमपी
20 एनटी 5786 एवं 1790/- रूपये नगदी मिले जप्त कर कब्जा पुलिस लिया
गया। दीपक पटेल से पुछताछ की गई जिसने पुछताछ पर अपने परिचित साथी
आजम खान जिसका मोबाईल नं. 9300788788, 9425385786, 7909755000
निवासी फु टाताल के द्वारा अपने सहयोगी निक्की जैन जिसका मो.नं.
9131249681 निवासी अंधेरदेव के द्वारा सट्टे के कार्य मे कमिशन के आधार पर
लगाया गया था तथा कानूनी कार्यवाही से बचने के लिये स्वयं साथ में नहीं रहते
वाटस्प चेट एवं अन्य चेट के माध्यम से सम्पर्क में होना बताया मौके प्र
आरोपियान का कृ त्य धारा 4 (क) सट्टा अधिनियम, 109, 112, 114, 120बी ताहि
का अपराध पाये जाने से आरोपिगण के विरूद्ध अपराध पंजीबद्ध कर विवेचना
मे लिया गया।"
10. The police during the course of investigation has recorded the
statement of some of the co-accused under Section 161 of CrPC, in
which they have stated that the present petitioner is also involved in the
said crime but according to the petitioner, the statement/memorandum of
co-accused cannot be used against him for making him an accused as
MCRC-5562-2025
the same is inadmissible under the law. Except the
statement/memorandum of co-accused, nothing is available on record
and no cogent evidence is collected by the prosecution to indicate the
involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged crime. The prevision
of respective Section i.e. Section 4(a) of the Public Gambling Act, 1867,
under which the offence has been registered, according to the petitioner,
is also not applicable. Section 4(a) reads as under:-
"4A. Punishment for printing or publishing digits,
figures, signs, symbols or pictures relating to Worli
Matkas or other form of gaming.--(1) Whoever prints or
publishes in any manner whatsoever any digits or figures or
signs or symbols or pictures or combination of any two or
more of such digits or figures or signs or symbols or
pictures relating to Worli Matka or any other form of
gaming under any heading whatsoever or by adopting any
form of device, or disseminates or attempts to disseminate
or abets dissemination of information relating to such digits
or figures or signs or symbols or pictures or combination of
any two or more of them shall be punishable with
imprisonment which may extent to six months and with fine
which may extent to one thousand rupees.
(2) Where any person is accused of an offence under sub-
section (1), any digits or figures or signs or symbols or
pictures or combinations of any two or more of such digits
or figures or symbols or pictures in respect of which the
offence is alleged to have been committed shall be
presumed to relate to Worli Matka gaming or some other
form of gaming unless the contrary is proved by accused."
It is clear from the record, especially the material collected by the
prosecution as to how the offence under Section 4(a) is formulated and
how the offence can be registered against the petitioner in the alleged
crime.
11. So far as the remaining Sections i.e. 109, 112, 114, 120-B and 420
of IPC are concerned, if the language of these Sections are seen, then it
MCRC-5562-2025
is clear that the requirement of formulating the offences under these
Sections are also not available. For the purpose of convenience, it is apt
to reproduced the provisions of respective Sections i.e. 109, 112, 114,
120-B and 420 of IPC, which reads as under:-
"109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is
committed in consequence and where no express
provision is made for its punishment.--Whoever abets any
offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence
of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this
Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished
with the punishment provided for the offence.
112. Abettor when liable to cumulative punishment for
act abetted and for act done.--If the act for which the
abettor is liable under the last preceding section is
committed in addition to the act abetted, and constitute a
distinct offence, the abettor is liable to punishment for each
of the offences.
114. Abettor present when offence is committed.--
Whenever any person who if absent would be liable to be
punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence
for which he would be punishable in consequence of the
abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have
committed such act or offence.
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.--(1) Whoever
is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable with death, 2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous
imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall,
where no express provision is made in this Code for the
punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same
manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other
than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable
as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six months, or with
fine or with both.]
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property.-- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly
induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any
MCRC-5562-2025
person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of
a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed,
and which is capable of being converted into a valuable
security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine."
12. Considering the provisions of these Sections, in the opinion of this
court, the prosecution initiated by the prosecuting agency must be based
upon some cogent evidence because initiating a prosecution is not a
normal thing and if a person is implicated with some oblique motive and
is being harassed unnecessarily, then under such a circumstance, the
High Court should not hesitate to quash the said malicious prosecution
exercising the power provided under Section 482 of CrPC.
13. In a case reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 332 (State of Haryana
and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others), the Supreme Court has laid
down certain yardsticks under which malicious prosecution can be
quashed. The yardsticks laid down in the said case are as under:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482
of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above,
we give the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulate and
to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised: (1) Where the allegations
made in the first information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make
out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in
MCRC-5562-2025
the first information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3)
Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make
out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in
the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where
the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd
and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)
Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive
for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the
power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that
too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be
justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability
or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent
powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court
to act according to its whim or caprice."
14. Considering the said legal position, the Supreme Court in a case
of Vineet Kumar (supra) has also observed as under:-
"41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section
482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of
MCRC-5562-2025
justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be
abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has
to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court
cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one
of the categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court
in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a
solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be
converted into an instrument of operation or harassment.
When there are materials to indicate that a criminal
proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive,
the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the
proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which is to the following effect:
(SCC p. 379, para 102)
"102. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge."
Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the
present case. Although, the High Court has noted the
judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, but did not
advert to the relevant facts of the present case, materials on
which final report was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are
fully satisfied that the present is a fit case where the High
Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings."
15. Likewise, in case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (supra),
the Supreme Court has also laid down as to what type of evidence are
required to be produced by the prosecution so as to initiate prosecution
and implicate a person in a crime. The observation made by the
Supreme Court is as under:-
"10. In dealing with the last case, it is important to bear in
mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal
evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly
MCRC-5562-2025
inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where
there is a legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or
may not support the accusations. When exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court
would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the
evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a
reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be
sustained. That is the function of the trial judge. Judicial
process should not be an instrument of oppression, or,
needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and
judicious in exercising discretion and should take all
relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before
issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands
of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any
person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an
instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a
prosecution and bring about its sudden death."
16. This court not only in one case but in a number of cases has
quashed the proceedings exercising the power provided under Section
482 of CrPC relying upon several decisions of the Supreme Court and
also taking note of the legal position as has been laid down by the
Supreme Court in cases of Bhajan Lala (supra), Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (supra) and Vineet Kumar (supra).
17. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case so also
the view expressed by the Supreme Court and also by this Court, I am
also of the opinion that in the present case, there is nothing available on
record indicating that the present petitioner can be prosecuted in the
alleged offence because no evidence of his involvement in the alleged
crime is available with the prosecution. Merely because a co-accused in
his statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC before the police has
named the present petitioner, he cannot be said to be involved in the
alleged offence because he has never been involved in it. Even
otherwise, the requirement of formulating the offence and the material
MCRC-5562-2025
ingredients so as to initiate prosecution under the alleged offence against
the present petitioner are not available on record.
18. Prima facie it is a case in which, this court can exercise the power
provided under Section 482 of CrPC with regard to the allegations as
has been narrated by the respondent about formulating a forged Cell
Companies and using their accounts in the alleged crime because in a
same set of allegations, the accused namely, Amit Sharma and Manoj
Kumar Sanpal have been acquitted by the trial court vide judgment
dated 23.01.2004 passed in S.T. No.197/2023 by the Sixth Additional
Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. A copy of the said judgment has been supplied
by the counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the said judgment,
it is seen that the court has acquitted the accused persons considering the
fact that the prosecution has failed to adduce any cogent evidence and
charges levelled against them could not have been proved beyond all
reasonable doubt.
19. As such, looking to the aforesaid legal preposition and enunciation
of law, I am of the opinion that the offence registered against the petitioner
is nothing but an abuse of process of law for the reason that the story as
has been presented in the FIR without there being any supporting material
appears to be concocted and fabricated. Under the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, such a prosecution cannot be allowed to
continue against the petitioner which is based upon unfounded allegations
and no cogent and proper material collected by the prosecution so as to
implicate the present petitioner in the alleged crime.
20. Ex consequentia, the petition is allowed. The FIR registered
against the petitioner vide Crime No.170/2022 at Police Station Madan
MCRC-5562-2025
Mahal, District Jabalpur, for the offence punishable under Section 4(a)
of Public Gambling Act and Sections 109, 112, 114, 120-B and 420 of
IPC is hereby quashed. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings
arising out of the said FIR are also quashed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
ac/-
