1 CGHC010298802026 2026:CGHC:34047-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2037 of 2026 Naman Gupta S/o Harinarayan Gupta Aged About 28 Years R/o 606, Junwani Road, In Front Of Gupta Fataka Shop, Pushpak Nagar, Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through S H O Police Station Chhawni District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent of Police Durg District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Santosh Sahu Posted As A S I, Police Station Chawni, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2/ State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sumit Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.08.06 10:20:39 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘B.N.S.S.’) with the following relief:- “1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent to call relevant records pertaining to the instant matter. 2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR registered at Police Station Chawni, in Crime No 278/2026 under Section 111 of the BNS and U/S 7 of CG Gambling (Prohibition) Act registered against the petitioner. 3. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No 19285/2026 registered against the Petitioner under Section U/s 111 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(a) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 7 of the CG Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 pending before Ld. JMFC Durg, District Durg CG. 4. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Cognizance taken by the Ld. JMFC Durg on dated 15/07/2026 U/s 111, 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(a) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 7 of the CG Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022. 5. Any other relief this Hon'ble High Court deems fit.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR, the charge-sheet and the consequential order taking cognizance are wholly unsustainable in law and constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. He submits that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statements of the co- 3 accused recorded during investigation and no independent material has been collected to establish his involvement in the alleged online cricket gambling activities. It is contended that except for the seizure of two mobile phones belonging to the petitioner, no incriminating material has been recovered from his possession connecting him with the commission of the alleged offences under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 or the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the investigating agency has mechanically filed the charge-sheet and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has taken cognizance without there being sufficient material to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner. It is argued that the prosecution case itself discloses that the investigation in respect of the principal accused persons and the reports sought from the Cyber Cell and the concerned Banks were still awaited, yet the petitioner has been charge-sheeted without any substantive evidence. It is, therefore, submitted that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law and, accordingly, the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance deserve to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the impugned FIR was registered on the basis of credible information received by the police regarding organised online cricket betting and, during the course of investigation, sufficient material has 4 been collected against the petitioner. It is submitted that the investigation led to the arrest of the co-accused, whose memorandum statements disclosed the involvement of the petitioner and other accused persons in operating online betting through the platform "Fair Play 74". Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was apprehended and the mobile phones, laptop, SIM cards, passbooks and ATM cards used in the commission of the offence were seized during investigation. On the basis of the material collected, a charge-sheet has already been filed and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has taken cognizance of the offences. 6. Learned State counsel further submits that the investigation has revealed financial transactions involving betting amounts through various bank accounts and digital platforms. Although the charge-sheet has been filed against the arrested accused, further investigation under Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.) is continuing with respect to the absconding accused persons and for collection of additional electronic and banking evidence from the Cyber Cell and the concerned banks. It is, therefore, submitted that the prosecution has collected sufficient prima facie material against the petitioner and, at this stage, no case is made out for quashing the FIR, the charge-sheet or the order taking cognizance in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 5 8. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if 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, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now 528 of the B.N.S.S.). 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 6 10. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Apex Court has held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare cases. It has been categorically observed that while considering a prayer for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the FIR, nor can it appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Court is only required to examine whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further emphasized that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self-restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice. 11. Very recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 02.09.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid principles and further held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS), the High Court 7 cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact or evaluate the evidentiary worth of the material collected during investigation. Unless all these parameters are cumulatively satisfied, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, leaving the parties to establish their respective cases before the trial Court in accordance with law. 12. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesharwani (supra), it transpires that the allegations made in the impugned FIR, if taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The charge-sheet reveals that during the course of investigation, the co-accused allegedly disclosed the involvement of the petitioner in operating online cricket betting through the platform "Fair Play 74". Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was apprehended and the mobile phones, laptop, SIM cards, passbooks and ATM cards alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence were seized during investigation. The investigating agency has further collected material relating to banking transactions and digital evidence and, upon finding sufficient prima facie material, has submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the correctness, admissibility or evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation or undertake a mini trial while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. 8 13. It is also evident from the charge-sheet that the investigating agency has stated that further investigation under Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is continuing with respect to the absconding accused persons, namely, Venam @ Himanshu, Sanket Bhai, Sonu, Aaku, Niyaz and Ayush Yadav, and that reports from the Cyber Cell, banks and other authorities regarding electronic and financial transactions are still awaited. Merely because further investigation is continuing in respect of other accused persons would not render the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner illegal, particularly when the investigating agency has recorded its satisfaction that sufficient material exists against the petitioner to prosecute him. The contention that the petitioner has been implicated only on the basis of the memorandum statements of the co-accused and that the seized articles do not connect him with the alleged offences are all matters relating to appreciation of evidence, which fall exclusively within the domain of the trial Court. 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case does not fall within any of the well-recognised categories warranting exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction for quashing the FIR, the charge- sheet or the order taking cognizance. The allegations contained in the FIR, coupled with the material collected during investigation and reflected in the charge-sheet, disclose a prima facie case requiring adjudication by the competent criminal Court. The pleas raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact and appreciation of evidence, which cannot be gone into in recent proceedings. 9 15. Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made in this order are confined to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all such factual and legal contentions as may be available to him before the trial Court, which shall consider the same independently and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu