Vijay vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Through

Heard.

The applicant has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the

Cr.P.C.') for quashing the FIR registered at P.S. Kotwali, Jhabua bearing crime No.225/2015 for commission of the offence punishable under section

420, 120(B), 193 of the IPC and sec.3/4 of Public Gambling Act, and further quashment of S.T.No.63/2016 has also been sought which has been

pending in furtherance of the aforesaid FIR.

The facts leading to filing of instant application are that on 26.3.2015 at about 3.45 p.m. on the basis of source information the police made a raid in

the Gopalam House situated in Gopal Colony, Jhabua where co-accused Chetan, was playing gambling of cricket game played between India and

Australia through Laptop and mobile phone. Police intercepted the co-accused Chetan and recovered one Lenovo laptop, one LDC and 9 mobile

phones along with chargers. On the basis of the information given by the co-accused Chetan, the other co-accused Deepak @ Dimple was also

arrested and on the basis of interrogation of the co-accused persons, police implicated the present applicant on the ground that he arranged the sim

card for accused Chetan which he was using for gambling. Thereafter police arrested the applicant and after completion of investigation, police filed

the charge-sheet against all the accused persons before the CJM, Jhabua who committed the case to the court of Sessions.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not present on the spot at the time of the incident. Police arrested the applicant on

23.5.2015, however nothing has been seized from him. Police implicated the present applicant only on the basis that he arranged the sim which was

being used by co-accused Chetan but there is no document available on record to show that the applicant has arranged the sim card on the basis of

fake documents. In these circumstances, there is no evidence available to implicate the present applicant with the present crime therefore he has

prayed for quashment of the FIR and all other consequential proceedings registered against the applicant.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the criminal prosecution on the ground that prima facie sufficient material is available on record

for the prosecution of the applicant, therefore the application deserves to be dismissed.

I have considered the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties and perused the documents placed on record along with the present application.

Parameters on which the indulgence can be shown for exercising the power available under section 482 Cr.P.C. have been laid down by the Hon.

Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Rajagopal Vs. Devi Polymers (P) Ltd; (2016) 6 SCC 310,wherein the Hon'ble Court referring to the earlier

decision, observed in the following manner:-

“15. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre,

(1988) 1 SCC 692, 1988 SCC (Cri) 234}, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 695, para 7)

“7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to

whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special

features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is

so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are

bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into

consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.

In the context of law laid down by the Hon. Apex Court the plain reading of the FIR dated 26.3.2015 goes to show that at the time of raid, the

applicant was not found present at the place of occurrence therefore he was not named in the FIR. The Police has recovered 9 mobile phones from

the possession of co-accused Chetan and during the course of investigation, police found that co-accused Deepak who is brother of Chetan running

the shop of mobile and sim card and he provided the sim card to Chetan. Although 2 sim cards pertaining to mobile Number 9009685676 and

9425102033 have been issued in the name of applicant Vijay Chouhan, however there is nothing on record to show that the documents were provided

by the applicant to Deepak or Chetan on the basis of which the aforesaid sim cards were issued. On the Contrary, the co-accused Deepak @ Dimple

in his disclosure statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act informed the police that he had arranged the aforesaid sim card on the basis of fake

document. No recovery has been made from the possession of the applicant. No material is available on record to show that applicant was with the

association of Chetan and he was also involved in the gambling of cricket game.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the opinion that there is no prima facie evidence available on record to connect the applicant

with the present crime. In such a situation, continuance of pending criminal proceedings against the applicant would be an abuse of process of law. In

these circumstances, the FIR registered against the applicant at crime No.225/2015 at Police Station Jhabua for the offence punishable under section

420, 120(B), 193 of the IPC and sec. 3/4 of Public Gambling Act and other consequential proceedings of S.T. No.63/2016 pending before the I ASJ,

Jhabua against the applicant Vijay Chouhan are hereby quashed.

With the aforesaid, M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.

C.c. as per rules.