Section 120 BNS | Call Records Alone Insufficient to Establish Criminal Conspiracy: MP High Court Quashes FIR Against DSP

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, quashed criminal proceedings against a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), holding that call detail records alone, without substantive evidence of criminal intent or agreement, are insufficient to establish a prima facie case for conspiracy or other offences. The judgment reaffirms that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof in criminal jurisprudence.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Pankaj Mishra, a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) posted as Assistant Commander of HAWK Force in Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh, sought quashing of criminal proceedings arising from Crime No. 473/2025 registered at Police Station Lakhanwara, District Seoni. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 310(2) (dacoity), 126(2) (wrongful restraint), 140(3) (kidnapping), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), and 238(b) (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Key Facts

• 09.10.2025: Sohan Lal Parmar lodged a complaint at Police Station Kotwali, Seoni, alleging that his associates Mukhtar and driver Irfan Pathan were intercepted by Seoni Police, who unlawfully took Rs. 1,45,00,000 out of Rs. 2,96,50,000 being transported in a vehicle.
• The cash was suspected to be hawala money.
• 08.10.2025: Information regarding the vehicle reached SDOP Pooja Pandey (co-accused) through Constable Pramod Soni, who allegedly received it from an informer named Panju Goswami.
• 09.10.2025: Pooja Pandey, along with a raiding team, intercepted the vehicle and recovered the cash. It is alleged that 75% of the recovered amount (Rs. 1,45,00,000) was unlawfully retained.
• The petitioner is alleged to have passed on the initial information to Pooja Pandey but had no direct role in the interception or misappropriation.
• 13.10.2025: An inquiry report by Additional Superintendent of Police Ayush Gupta concluded that the petitioner, Constable Pramod Soni, and Panju Goswami were in contact with Pooja Pandey before and after the incident.
• Rs. 1,45,00,000 was recovered from Pooja Pandey and ASI Arpit Bhairam.
• Virendra Dixit, brother-in-law of Pooja Pandey, was also implicated.

Procedural History

• Crime No. 473/2025 was registered at Police Station Lakhanwara, Seoni.
• The charge-sheet was filed against all accused, but investigation against the petitioner and Pooja Pandey continued under Section 193(9) BNSS pending sanction for prosecution.
• 16.04.2026: The petition under Section 528 BNSS was heard by the High Court.
• 29.04.2026: The High Court pronounced its order quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioner

• The FIR and charge-sheet are misconceived and fail to disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner.
• The petitioner merely passed on information regarding a suspicious vehicle to Pooja Pandey, with no common intention or meeting of minds to constitute criminal conspiracy.
• The interception and recovery of cash were lawful acts within police authority. Any illegality arose only when Pooja Pandey failed to report the recovery.
• The petitioner acted in discharge of official duties, and his conduct carries a presumption of bona fides.
• No recovery was made from the petitioner, and no witness implicated him in the alleged offences.
• Two preliminary enquiries conducted by competent officers exonerated the petitioner.
• The deletion of WhatsApp chats was a routine act and cannot be construed as destruction of evidence.
• The offences of robbery/dacoity are unsustainable as the cash was suspected to be hawala money, and police were duty-bound to intercept it.

For the Respondent/State

• The petition is premature as the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of seeking discharge before the Trial Court.
• The mobile forensic analysis reveals 81 calls between the petitioner and Pooja Pandey from 10:00 PM on 08.10.2025 to 10:00 PM on 09.10.2025, including 51 calls after the raid.
• The petitioner transmitted the complainant's contact details to Pooja Pandey, indicating active participation.
• The petitioner was in conference calls with Constable Pramod Soni and informer Panju Goswami, suggesting coordinated effort.
• The petitioner shared and deleted a YouTube link related to concealing contraband, reflecting guilty mind.
• The call records and forensic evidence cumulatively establish a prima facie case against the petitioner.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether call detail records and mobile forensic analysis, without substantive evidence of criminal intent or agreement, are sufficient to establish a prima facie case for offences under Sections 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), 310(2) (dacoity), 126(2) (wrongful restraint), 140(3) (kidnapping), and 238(b) (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• Relied on Central Bureau of Investigation Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao and State by S.P. CBI v. Uttamchand Bohra to argue that mere suspicion cannot substitute proof.
• Cited Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra to emphasize that continuation of proceedings without prima facie case amounts to abuse of process.
• Contended that the petitioner's role was limited to passing information, and there was no evidence of dishonest intent.
• Argued that the deletion of WhatsApp chats was a routine act and not indicative of guilt.

For the Respondent/State

• Relied on Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra and CBI v. Arvind Khanna to argue that inherent jurisdiction should not be invoked prematurely.
• Contended that the forensic evidence establishes active coordination between the petitioner and co-accused.
• Argued that the petitioner's continued involvement beyond his official duty demonstrates criminal intent.
• Submitted that the burden of proof shifts to the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the preliminary objection regarding maintainability, noting that while an alternative remedy exists, it does not absolutely bar the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS if continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process. The Court emphasized that inherent jurisdiction is intended to secure the ends of justice.

"The jurisdiction under the said provision is wide and is intended, inter alia, to secure the ends of justice."

The Court observed that the prosecution case rests solely on call detail records, with no transcript, recording, or substantive evidence to establish the contents of conversations. The Court held that mere existence of calls, without evidence of unlawful intent or agreement, cannot constitute criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2) BNS.

"In absence of the contents of communication, the mere existence of calls without any substantive content demonstrating a prior meeting of minds or agreement to commit an illegal act, howsoever frequent cannot by itself constitute criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023."

The Court further noted that no witness, including the complainant and co-accused Pooja Pandey, implicated the petitioner. The investigation report itself proposed FIR registration primarily against Pooja Pandey and the raiding party, with no adverse finding against the petitioner.

Regarding Sections 140(3), 310(2), and 126(2) BNS, the Court held that there was no allegation or material attributing any overt act to the petitioner. The gravamen of the offences pertained to acts committed by the raiding party, with the petitioner's role being too remote to attract liability.

The Court also dismissed the invocation of Section 238(b) BNS, holding that the deletion of the YouTube link was informational and not linked to the alleged offence. There was no evidence that the deletion was intended to cause disappearance of evidence.

The Court relied on the principle laid down in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, which holds that mere suspicion does not justify continuation of proceedings. The Court emphasized that criminal prosecution cannot be permitted on the basis of conjectures or unsupported allegations.

"Where the material gives rise only to some suspicion and not grave suspicion, the accused is entitled to be discharged, and continuation of proceedings would be unjustified."

The Court also referred to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which enumerates categories where inherent powers can be exercised to quash proceedings. The Court held that the allegations against the petitioner fall within the first category, as they do not prima facie constitute any offence.

The Verdict

The petitioner succeeded in full. The Court quashed the charge-sheet and all consequential criminal proceedings arising from Crime No. 473/2025 insofar as they relate to the petitioner. The petitioner was discharged from all charges under Sections 310(2), 126(2), 140(3), 61(2), and 238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Call Records Alone Are Insufficient for Conspiracy

• No Substantive Evidence: Mere call records, without transcripts, recordings, or evidence of criminal intent, cannot establish criminal conspiracy or other offences.
• Official Communication: Telephonic contact between police officials in the course of duty cannot be elevated to incriminating evidence without supporting material.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove the contents of communication to establish a prima facie case.

Continuation of Proceedings Without Prima Facie Case Is Abuse of Process

• Grave Suspicion Required: Proceedings cannot continue on mere suspicion; the material must disclose grave suspicion of the accused's involvement.
• Alternative Remedy Not Absolute: The existence of an alternative remedy (e.g., discharge before Trial Court) does not bar inherent jurisdiction if proceedings amount to abuse of process.
• Judicial Scrutiny: Courts must examine material at threshold to prevent unjust continuation of proceedings.

Police Officers Entitled to Presumption of Bona Fides

• Official Duties: Acts performed in discharge of official duties carry a presumption of bona fides.
• No Recovery or Benefit: Absence of recovery from the accused or wrongful gain weakens the prosecution case.
• Preliminary Enquiries: Findings of preliminary enquiries exonerating the accused are relevant in assessing the prima facie case.

Deletion of Electronic Data Must Be Linked to Offence

• Intent to Destroy Evidence: Deletion of electronic data must be proved to be with intent to cause disappearance of evidence.
• Routine Acts: Routine deletion of data cannot be construed as guilt without corroborative evidence.
• Informational Content: Sharing or deleting informational content unrelated to the offence does not attract liability under Section 238(b) BNS.