Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court

 "The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling dated September 25, 2026, has clarified that the principle of parity cannot be mechanically applied to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC.

A single judge bench of Justice Vivek Jain held that even if an FIR is quashed against co-accused persons, it does not mandate a similar relief for an applicant if their specific role involves distinct allegations of organized crime that require thorough investigation.

The petitioner, Vicky alias Harish Manani, sought to quash an FIR registered at P.S. Omti, Jabalpur, under Sections 384, 386, 389, and 120B of the IPC. He contended that since a co-ordinate bench had previously quashed the same FIR against three other co-accused (the Khatri brothers) on the ground that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, he was entitled to the same relief under the principle of parity.

The court was primarily tasked with determining whether the principle of parity could be invoked to quash an FIR against an accused whose role was purportedly distinct from those who had already secured relief. Additionally, the court addressed whether the existence of specific allegations of illegal betting rackets warranted the continuation of an investigation, notwithstanding the quashment of proceedings against other co-accused in the same FIR.

The court analyzed the distinction between the roles of the Khatri brothers and the petitioner. While the Khatri brothers were accused of coercing the complainant into property transfers, the court noted that the petitioner faced specific allegations regarding the operation of an online cricket betting racket.

Distinguishing Roles of Accused

The bench emphasized that although the petitioner was part of the same FIR, the material collected during investigation—including statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC—specifically identified him as the facilitator of an online betting platform. Unlike the Khatri brothers, whose actions were categorized as a civil dispute regarding loan repayments and property execution, the petitioner was alleged to be operating a criminal enterprise.

"FIR Not An Encyclopaedia Of Facts"

The court reiterated the settled legal position that an FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all facts. Therefore, even if the primary dispute involving other accused appeared civil in nature, the court cannot ignore specific evidence that points toward the commission of cognizable offences under special statutes, such as the Public Gambling Act or the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes Banning Act.

No Absolute Right To Parity

The court held that the principle of parity is not an absolute rule that permits an accused to ride on the back of a co-accused’s acquittal or discharge without considering the evidence. Justice Vivek Jain observed that the petitioner’s case was not at par with the co-accused because the allegations against him regarding the management of a betting racket were specific and substantiated by digital evidence and witness statements.

Public Interest In Investigation

The court underscored that it is in the interest of society at large that allegations of large-scale betting rackets are investigated in depth. Allowing the petition would lead to a premature scuttling of the investigation. The court clarified that if the petitioner is indeed innocent, he would naturally be exonerated during the investigation or at the trial stage, but the current stage is not appropriate for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

Dismissal of Petition

Finding that the specific allegations against the petitioner necessitated a full investigation to unravel a larger criminal conspiracy, the court refused to grant the benefit of parity. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the police were permitted to continue their investigation into the alleged betting racket.

Date of Decision: 25 September 2026