The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that a custodial confession of a co-accused, unsupported by independent evidence or discovery, cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution. In a decisive ruling, the Court quashed an FIR under the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022, finding that the entire case against the petitioner rested on an inadmissible statement, rendering the proceedings an abuse of legal process.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Rajnarayan Sahu @ Raju Sahu, was named as Accused No. 2 in FIR No. 0425/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar, under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner managed an illegal Satta-Patti betting operation through a mobile number, with Hariram Verma, a 75-year-old man, acting as the operative who wrote betting slips on his behalf.
Key Facts
- On 29.04.2025 at approximately 11:30 AM, police conducted a raid in village Rawan and arrested Hariram Verma, who was allegedly caught red-handed writing Satta-Patti.
- ₹600 and gambling materials were seized from Hariram Verma’s possession.
- A memorandum statement was recorded from Hariram Verma during police custody, in which he claimed to have been writing betting slips for the petitioner in exchange for a 10% commission.
- No incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner.
- No Call Detail Records (CDR) or other technical evidence linked the petitioner to the alleged operation.
- The petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence on the date of the raid.
- The petitioner had no prior conviction; all previous criminal cases against him ended in acquittal.
- In 2019, externment proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police were rejected by the Collector for lack of prima facie evidence.
- In a prior case, FIR No. 0876 dated 21.12.2021 under Section 4(A) of the Public Gambling (Chhattisgarh Amendment) Act, the Chhattisgarh High Court had already quashed the proceedings on 06.08.2025 in CRMP No. 1024/2022, holding the prosecution to be false and an abuse of process.
Procedural History
- 29.04.2025: FIR No. 0425/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar.
- 01.05.2025 at 10:30 AM: Memorandum statement of co-accused Hariram Verma recorded.
- 01.05.2025 at 11:00 AM: Petitioner formally arrested (arrest memo timestamp).
- 26.05.2025: Chargesheet No. 453/2025 filed, relying solely on the custodial statement.
- 15.01.2026: Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected petitioner’s application for discharge under Section 262 of BNSS, mechanically accepting the co-accused’s statement.
- 04.02.2026: First Additional Sessions Judge dismissed Criminal Revision No. 04/2026, holding a prima facie case existed.
- 19.03.2026: Writ petition filed under Section 482 CrPC before the Chhattisgarh High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: The prosecution case is built entirely on an inadmissible custodial confession of a co-accused, with no corroboration, no recovery, no witness, and no technical evidence. The arrest memo contradicts the statement timing, indicating fabrication. The petitioner has been subjected to a pattern of malicious prosecution, including prior quashed FIRs and rejected externment proceedings.
For the Respondents: The Government Advocate admitted the case rests on the co-accused’s memorandum but did not contest the absence of independent evidence.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 0425/2025, Chargesheet No. 453/2025, and the order dated 04.02.2026 dismissing the criminal revision, on grounds of abuse of process and lack of legal evidence.
The Legal Issue
Can a criminal prosecution be sustained under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022, when the sole basis for implicating the accused is an uncorroborated custodial statement of a co-accused, with no discovery, no recovery, and no independent evidence?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh to argue that the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC may be invoked to quash proceedings where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not constitute an offence. The custodial statement of Hariram Verma has no evidentiary value under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as no fact was discovered. The timing discrepancy between the statement (10:30 AM) and arrest (11:00 AM) indicates procedural fraud. The petitioner’s history of acquittals and prior quashing of an identical FIR establishes a pattern of harassment.
For the Respondent/State
The Government Advocate conceded that the prosecution case depended entirely on the co-accused’s memorandum but offered no rebuttal to the petitioner’s evidence of fabrication, lack of corroboration, or prior judicial findings of mala fide.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of the evidentiary and procedural defects in the prosecution’s case. It emphasized that a confession or memorandum of a co-accused, recorded in police custody, cannot be the sole foundation for framing charges or sustaining prosecution unless it leads to the discovery of a fact under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In this case, no such discovery occurred.
"It is well-settled that a memorandum or confessional statement of a co-accused, by itself, does not constitute substantive evidence and cannot be made the sole basis for implicating another accused."
The Court noted the glaring inconsistency in the timeline: the statement was recorded at 10:30 AM, but the arrest occurred at 11:00 AM. Recording a statement before formal arrest is legally impermissible and undermines the integrity of the investigation. The Court observed:
"Recording of such a statement prior to formal arrest is not legally sustainable and further erodes its admissibility."
The Court also examined the petitioner’s history, referencing its own prior order quashing FIR No. 0876/2021 as an abuse of process. The rejection of externment proceedings in 2019 further indicated that administrative authorities had found no substance in allegations against the petitioner. The Court concluded:
"The manner in which the petitioner has been implicated, without any legally admissible evidence, and solely on the basis of a custodial statement of a co-accused, indicates a mala fide exercise of power by the investigating agency."
Even assuming the prosecution’s version to be true, the Court held that Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling Act requires proof that the accused was running, managing, or connected with a gaming house. No such nexus was established against the petitioner.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Chhattisgarh High Court quashed FIR No. 0425/2025, Chargesheet No. 453/2025, and the order dated 04.02.2026 dismissing the criminal revision, insofar as they relate to the petitioner. All proceedings against the petitioner under the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022, are hereby terminated. The Court directed the State to ensure no further action is taken against the petitioner in connection with this matter.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Custodial Statements Are Not Evidence
- Practitioners must challenge any prosecution relying solely on a co-accused’s custodial statement without corroboration or discovery.
- Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not invoked merely by mentioning a name; there must be a tangible discovery of an object or fact directly traceable to the confession.
- Courts must scrutinize the timing and circumstances of custodial statements for procedural irregularities.
Abuse of Process Requires Judicial Intervention
- A history of prior acquittals and quashed FIRs against the same accused strengthens a petition under Section 482 CrPC.
- Repeated targeting of an individual by the same investigating agency, especially after judicial rebuke, constitutes mala fide and warrants quashing.
- The High Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC is not limited to technical defects - it extends to preventing systemic harassment.
Procedural Integrity Is Non-Negotiable
- Arrest memos and statement timestamps must align; discrepancies are not clerical errors but indicators of fabrication.
- Courts must not defer to the prosecution’s version when the record reveals clear procedural violations.
- The burden shifts to the State to justify the legitimacy of its investigation when a pattern of abuse is established.
