1

2026:CGHC:13121-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 669 of 2026

Rajnarayan Sahu @ Raju Sahu S/o Late Sunderlal Sahu Aged About 61

Years R/o Nehru Chowk, Balodabazar, P.S. City Kotwali, District-

Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

... Petitioner

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through-District Magistrate District-

Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

2 - Station House Officer Through- Police Station- City Kotwali,

Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.)

... Respondents

For Petitioner :Mr.Prakash Tiwari, Advocate

For Respondents :Mr.Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

19.03.2026

1.Heard Mr.Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as

well as Mr.Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate

appearing for the respondents/State.

2

2.The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer:

“ It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble court may

kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set aside

the impugned F.I.R. No. 0425/2025 dated

29.04.2025 lodged at Police Station City Kotwali,

Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh along with Chargesheet

No. 453/2025 dated 26.05.2025 registered U/s 6 of

the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022

and the Order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the

First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar-

Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh), in Criminal Revision

Case No. 04/2026 arising out of Criminal Case No.

2608/2025 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate

Baloda Bazar in the ends of justice.”

3.Brief facts are necessary for the case are that the Police Station

City Kotwali, Balodabazar (C.G.) has initiated criminal

proceedings against the petitioner under F.I.R. No. 0425/2025,

under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act,

2022, on the basis of information received by Head Constable

Aadoram Dhruv. On 29.04.2025 at about 11:30 AM, the police

conducted a raid in village Rawan and apprehended a 75-year-old

individual, namely Hariram Verma, who was allegedly caught red-

handed writing Satta-Patti. Upon his arrest, the police seized

₹600/- and certain gambling materials from his exclusive

possession. During the course of the investigation, the police

recorded the memorandum statement of the co-accused, Hariram

Verma. In the said statement, the co-accused allegedly claimed

that he was writing betting slips at the behest of the present

3

applicant, Rajnarayan Sahu, for a 10% commission, and further

alleged that the petitioner managed the operations through a

specific mobile number. Acting solely on this custodial confession,

the police arrayed the petitioner as Accused No. 2. Despite the

absolute lack of incriminating material, the police authorities filed

the chargesheet on 26.05.2025 in Crime No. 425/2025 for an

offence punishable under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling

(Prohibition) Act, 2022.

4.The petitioner, being aggrieved by this baseless implication, filed

an application for discharge under Section 262 of the BNSS

before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar. However,

vide order dated 15.01.2026, learned Trial Court rejected the

application in a mechanical manner without considering that the

memorandum of a co-accused does not constitute “legal

evidence.”

5.The petitioner subsequently challenged the said order by way of a

Criminal Revision in Criminal Revision Case No. 04/2026 arising

out of Criminal Case No. 2608/2025 pending before the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar, before the First Additional

Sessions Judge, Balodabazar. Vide the impugned order dated

04.02.2026, learned Lower Court dismissed the revision,

erroneously holding that a prima facie case exists and that the

merits of the evidence cannot be evaluated at this stage.

6.It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has been a victim of

4

targeted harassment by the local police. In order to expose this

pattern of malicious prosecution, the petitioner pplicant filed an

application under the Right to Information Act to obtain a list of all

criminal cases previously filed against him. The RTI records

reveal a startling fact, namely that in every single case previously

instituted against the petitioner by the police, he has been found

“Not Guilty” and has been granted clean acquittal by the

competent Court. This clearly establishes that the present FIR is

merely a continuation of a persistent attempt to tarnish the

applicant’s reputation. Hence, this petition.

7.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire

prosecution case rests solely upon the memorandum statement of

the co-accused, namely Hariram Verma, allegedly recorded

during police custody. It is submitted that such a statement has no

evidentiary value in the eyes of law and cannot be used as

substantive evidence against the present petitioner. The law is

well-settled that a confessional or disclosure statement of a co-

accused cannot form the sole basis either for framing of charge or

for continuation of criminal proceedings, unless it leads to a

discovery of fact, which is admittedly absent in the present case. It

is further submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as an

accused only on the basis of the said custodial statement, without

any independent corroboration. No recovery has been made from

the petitioner, no incriminating material has been seized, and no

independent witness or technical evidence such as Call Detail

5

Records has been brought on record to connect the petitioner with

the alleged offence. Even as per the prosecution case, the

petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. Learned

counsel further draws the attention of this Court to a glaring

procedural illegality in the investigation. As per the arrest memo,

the petitioner was arrested at 11:00 hours on 01.05.2025,

whereas the memorandum statement is shown to have been

recorded at 10:30 hours on the same day. This clearly

demonstrates that the alleged statement was recorded prior to the

formal arrest, rendering the same wholly illegal and inadmissible

in law. Such manipulation of records indicates that the

investigating agency has acted in a predetermined and mala fide

manner to falsely implicate the petitioner.

8.On the aspect of targeted harassment, it is submitted that the

petitioner has been consistently subjected to malicious

prosecution at the hands of the local police. In the year 2019,

externment proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by

the Superintendent of Police, Balodabazar; however, the same

were rejected by the Collector, Balodabazar, on the ground that

no prima facie case was made out. This itself demonstrates that

even the administrative authorities found no substance in the

allegations against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the

petitioner had earlier approached this Court in connection with

FIR No. 0876 dated 21.12.2021 registered at Police Station City

Kotwali, Balodabazar for an offence under Section 4(A) of the

6

Public Gambling (Chhattisgarh Amendment) Act. This Court, vide

order dated 06.08.2025 passed in CRMP No. 1024/2022, was

pleased to quash the said FIR, categorically holding that the

prosecution was false, frivolous, and an abuse of the process of

law. In light of the aforesaid background, it is submitted that the

present FIR is nothing but a counterblast and a continuation of the

same pattern of harassment, particularly in view of the

proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the police

authorities, which are pending consideration before higher judicial

forums. The conduct of the investigating agency clearly reflects

mala fide intent and an attempt to tarnish the reputation of the

petitioner. Learned counsel submits that even if the entire

prosecution case is taken at its face value, the essential

ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 6 of the

Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 are not made out

against the petitioner. There is no material to show that the

petitioner was running, managing, or in any manner connected

with a gaming house. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed

and the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.

9.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for

the respondents/State opposes the submissions made by learned

counsel for the petitioner, but fairly admits that the present

petitioner has been implicated on the basis of memorandum

statement of co-accused Hariram Verma.

7

10.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

impugned FIR and other documents appended with the petition.

11.The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others

v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 held 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 formulae 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 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

8

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 concerned Act (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

concerned Act, 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

9

arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to

its whim or caprice.”

12.The Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Sharma and

others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others,

(2016) 9 SCC 1

held as under:-

“35. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section

482 of the Code, a similar view has been taken by a

Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Thapar and others

vs. Madan Kal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein it was

held as under:-

“29. The issue being examined in the instant

case is the jurisdiction of the High Court

under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to

quash the initiation of the prosecution

against an accused at the stage of issuing

process, or at the stage of committal, or even

at the stage of framing of charges. These are

all stages before the commencement of the

actual trial. The same parameters would

naturally be available for later stages as well.

The power vested in the High Court under

Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to

hereinabove, would have far-reaching

consequences inasmuch as it would negate

the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without

allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead

evidence. Such a determination must always

be rendered with caution, care and

circumspection. To invoke its inherent

jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High

Court has to be fully satisfied that the

10

material produced by the accused is such

that would lead to the conclusion that

his/their defence is based on sound,

reasonable, and indubitable facts; the

material produced is such as would rule out

and displace the assertions contained in the

charges levelled against the accused; and

the material produced is such as would

clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the

allegations contained in the accusations

levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It

should be sufficient to rule out, reject and

discard the accusations levelled by the

prosecution/complainant, without the

necessity of recording any evidence. For this

the material relied upon by the defence

should not have been refuted, or

alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted,

being material of sterling and impeccable

quality. The material relied upon by the

accused should be such as would persuade

a reasonable person to dismiss and

condemn the actual basis of the accusations

as false. In such a situation, the judicial

conscience of the High Court would

persuade it to exercise its power under

Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal

proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of

process of the court, and secure the ends of

justice.

30. Based on the factors canvassed in the

foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate

the following steps to determine the veracity

11

of a prayer for quashment raised by an

accused by invoking the power vested in the

High Court under Section 482 CrPC:

30.1. Step one: whether the material relied

upon by the accused is sound, reasonable,

and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling

and impeccable quality?

30.2. Step two: whether the material relied

upon by the accused would rule out the

assertions contained in the charges levelled

against the accused i.e. the material is

sufficient to reject and overrule the factual

assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the

material is such as would persuade a

reasonable person to dismiss and condemn

the factual basis of the accusations as false?

30.3. Step three: whether the material relied

upon by the accused has not been refuted by

the prosecution/complainant; and/or the

material is such that it cannot be justifiably

refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the

trial would result in an abuse of process of

the court, and would not serve the ends of

justice?

30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the

affirmative, the judicial conscience of the

High Court should persuade it to quash such

criminal proceedings in exercise of power

vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such

12

exercise of power, besides doing justice to

the accused, would save precious court time,

which would otherwise be wasted in holding

such a trial (as well as proceedings arisingt

therefrom) specially when it is clear that the

same would not conclude in the conviction of

the accused.”

13.In the matter of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013)

11 SCC 673, the Supreme Court recognized that although the

inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High

Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings

which are essentially of a civil nature. It was held as under:

“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482

of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This

power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose

of preventing abuse of the process of any court or

otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a

complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends

upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether

essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or

not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint

disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal

texture. But the High Court must see whether a

dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a

cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil

remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has

happened in this case, the High Court should not

hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent

abuse of process of the court.”

13

(emphasis supplied)

14.Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), the

Supreme Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14

SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken

recourse to as a weapon of harassment.

15.The undisputed position which emerges from the record is that

the present petitioner has been implicated in the crime in question

solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused,

namely Hariram Verma, recorded during police custody.

16.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. Such a statement can be relied upon only to the limited

extent of discovery of a fact, if any, in terms of the relevant

provisions of evidence law. In the present case, admittedly, no

recovery or discovery has been made pursuant to the said

memorandum statement so as to lend it any evidentiary value.

17.Apart from the said statement, no independent material has been

brought on record by the prosecution to connect the petitioner

with the alleged offence. No recovery has been made from the

petitioner, no incriminating articles have been seized, no

independent witness has supported the prosecution case, and no

technical evidence such as Call Detail Records has been

produced to establish any nexus between the petitioner and the

14

co-accused. Even as per the prosecution story, the petitioner was

not present at the place of occurrence.

18.This Court also finds substance in the submission of learned

counsel for the petitioner regarding the procedural illegality in the

investigation. The arrest memo indicates that the petitioner was

arrested at 11:00 hours on 01.05.2025, whereas the

memorandum statement is shown to have been recorded at 10:30

hours on the same day. This apparent inconsistency renders the

alleged memorandum highly doubtful and casts serious suspicion

on the fairness of the investigation. Recording of such a statement

prior to formal arrest is not legally sustainable and further erodes

its admissibility.

19.Further, on the aspect of targeted harassment, the material placed

on record indicates that externment proceedings initiated against

the petitioner in the year 2019 were rejected by the competent

authority for lack of substance. It is also not in dispute that in an

earlier case, i.e., FIR No. 0876 dated 21.12.2021 registered at

Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar, this Court had quashed

the criminal proceedings vide order dated 06.08.2025 passed in

CRMP No. 1024/2022, holding the prosecution to be false and an

abuse of the process of law.

20.The aforesaid background lends credence to the contention of the

petitioner that the present case is a continuation of a pattern of

malicious prosecution. The manner in which the petitioner has

15

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.

21.Even if the entire prosecution case is taken at its face value, this

Court finds that the essential ingredients of the offence under

Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022 are

not made out against the petitioner. There is no material to show

that the petitioner was running, managing, or in any manner

connected with a gaming house.

22.In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered

opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the

petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law and

would result in a miscarriage of justice.

23.Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR bearing

No. 0425/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali,

Balodabazar for offence under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh

Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022, along with all consequential

proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they relate to the

present petitioner, are hereby quashed.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Bablu