Court finds lack of substantive evidence; call detail records insufficient to prove conspiracy
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed the FIR and all related criminal proceedings against Pramod Kumar Soni, a police constable implicated in a high-profile case involving alleged misappropriation of hawala money. The judgment, delivered by Justice Himanshu Joshi, emphasized the absence of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offenses and underscored that mere telephonic contact does not establish criminal conspiracy.
The case originated from a complaint lodged by Sohan Lal Parmar in October 2025, alleging that police personnel intercepted a vehicle carrying Rs. 2.96 crore and unlawfully took Rs. 1.45 crore. The prosecution's case against Soni was primarily based on call detail records indicating telephonic contact between him and the co-accused, including SDOP Pooja Pandey, who allegedly led the operation.
Justice Joshi noted that the prosecution failed to present any transcripts, recordings, or electronic evidence to substantiate the conspiracy allegations. The court highlighted that mere suspicion, derived from call records, cannot replace proof required in criminal proceedings. The judgment referred to precedents from the Supreme Court, including the principles laid down in "State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal" and "Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal," reinforcing the necessity of substantive evidence for prosecution.
The court observed that the petitioner's role was limited to forwarding information received from an informer to another co-accused and found no direct evidence of his involvement in the interception or misappropriation of the money. The prosecution's reliance on call records was deemed insufficient, as these did not demonstrate any unlawful intent or agreement.
The judgment underscores the legal principle that call detail records alone, without corroborative evidence, cannot constitute proof of conspiracy or involvement in criminal activities. It reiterates the distinction between suspicion and proof, emphasizing the need for credible evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The ruling is expected to have implications for similar cases where prosecutions rely heavily on circumstantial evidence without substantive proof. The High Court's decision to quash the proceedings against Soni serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding against the misuse of legal processes and protecting individuals from unwarranted criminal prosecution.
Bottom line:-
Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Allegations based solely on call detail records without substantive evidence - Mere telephonic contact does not establish criminal conspiracy - Essential ingredients of offences not made out against the petitioner.
Statutory provision(s): Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Sections 310(2), 126(2), 140(3), 61(2), and 238(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
