Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"Mere telephonic contact, without anything more, cannot establish criminal conspiracy. In absence of any authenticated record in terms of the requirements of electronic evidence, the same cannot be treated as substantive material capable of establishing the ingredients of the alleged offence," High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, in a significant ruling, held that Call Detail Records (CDRs) indicating frequent telephonic contact between accused persons cannot be treated as substantive evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy in the absence of transcripts or voice recordings.

A bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed that while suspicion may justify investigation, it cannot form the basis of a charge-sheet or trial if the material collected fails to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence. The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to quash the criminal proceedings against a police constable implicated in a high-profile robbery and misappropriation case.

The case involved an FIR registered at Police Station Lakhanwara, District Seoni, against several police officials, including the petitioner, Pramod Kumar Soni, a Constable. It was alleged that a raiding party led by an SDOP intercepted a vehicle carrying suspected hawala money and unlawfully misappropriated Rs. 1.45 Crores. The petitioner was implicated on the allegation that he acted as the "originator of the information chain" by passing a tip from an informer to a co-accused, who eventually informed the raiding party.

The primary question before the court was whether the mere existence of frequent telephonic conversations, evidenced by CDRs, is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court also examined whether the availability of an alternative remedy of discharge before the trial court acts as an absolute bar to exercising the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

Alternative Remedy Not An Absolute Bar To Inherent Jurisdiction

Addressing the State's preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, the Court clarified that the existence of a statutory remedy like seeking discharge does not operate as an absolute bar to Section 528 BNSS. The bench noted that the jurisdiction under this provision is wide and intended to secure the ends of justice. If a petitioner can demonstrate that the continuation of proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law, the High Court is duty-bound to interfere even at the threshold.

CDRs Prove Factum Of Call But Not Substance Of Communication

The Court delved deep into the evidentiary value of Call Detail Records (CDRs) and mobile forensic analysis relied upon by the prosecution. It was noted that the entire edifice of the case against the petitioner rested on telephonic contacts before and after the incident. However, the Court observed that these records merely establish that calls were exchanged but do not disclose the contents of the conversations. In the absence of transcripts or electronic messages, the Court held that such contact is insufficient to infer a meeting of minds.

"At best, the material produced only indicates that certain calls were exchanged, which merely proves the factum of communication and not the substance thereof."

Passing Information On Suspicious Cash Falls Within Official Duties

Justice Joshi observed that even if the prosecution's case is accepted at face value, the act of a police constable passing on information regarding the suspicious movement of cash cannot be deemed outside the ambit of official duties. The Court highlighted that the petitioner had also contacted his superior officer after receiving the tip-off. In the absence of any material indicating a dishonest intention or active participation in the misappropriation, the Court found the implication to be based on "inference and suspicion" rather than concrete evidence.

Offences Of Dacoity And Kidnapping Require Overt Acts

Regarding the charges under Sections 310(2), 126(2), and 140(3) of the BNS—relating to dacoity, wrongful restraint, and kidnapping—the Court found that the prosecution material contained "not even a whisper" attributing any overt act to the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner was not part of the raiding party, was not present at the spot, and no recovery of the misappropriated money was effected from him. His role was deemed too remote and disconnected to attract these serious penal provisions.

"The gravamen of these allegations pertains to the acts allegedly committed at the spot by the raiding party. The petitioner’s role is too remote and disconnected to attract these provisions."

Absence Of Grave Suspicion Entitles Accused To Quashment

Relying on the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the High Court reiterated that if two views are possible and the evidence gives rise only to some suspicion but not "grave suspicion," the accused ought not to be compelled to face trial. The Court emphasized that a criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to continue on the basis of conjectures or unverified inferences that do not travel beyond the realm of mere suspicion.

"Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. While suspicion may justify investigation, it cannot form the basis of a charge-sheet in absence of cogent and legally admissible evidence."

Sharing Informational Videos Not Evidence Of Criminal Intent

The Court also dismissed the prosecution’s argument regarding a deleted YouTube link shared by the petitioner, which purportedly showed how to hide items in vehicle cavities. The bench found that the video was informational and related to general techniques for detecting illicit activities in hawala transactions. The Court held that circulation of such material for operational awareness in the course of duty cannot be construed as sharing criminal intent or facilitating an offence.

The High Court concluded that the essential ingredients of the offences invoked were conspicuously absent in the petitioner’s case. Finding that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and the charge-sheet as against the petitioner.

Date of Decision: 29 April 2026