Mere Call Detail Records Can't Establish Criminal Conspiracy Without Proof Of Conversation Contents: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while quashing criminal proceedings against a constable of the crime branch for criminal conspiracy, observed that in the absence of contents of communication, the mere existence of calls without substantive content demonstrating prior meeting of minds cannot by itself constitute criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2) of BNS. The bench of Justice Himanshu...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while quashing criminal proceedings against a constable of the crime branch for criminal conspiracy, observed that in the absence of contents of communication, the mere existence of calls without substantive content demonstrating prior meeting of minds cannot by itself constitute criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2) of BNS.
The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi held,
"In absence of the contents of communication, the mere existence of calls without any substantive content demonstrating a prior meeting of minds or agreement to commit an illegal act, howsoever frequent cannot by itself constitute criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023".
The petition was filed seeking quashment of the FIR registered for offences, including dacoity (Section 310), wrongful restraint (Section 126), kidnapping (Section 140), criminal conspiracy (Section 61) and causing disappearance of evidence (Section 238) of BNS.
Per the facts, one Sohal Lal filed an information claiming that his associate Mukhtar and his driver Irfan were intercepted and robbed by personnel of Seoni Police. Per the information, out of ₹2,96,50,000, the police unlawfully took ₹1,45,00,000.
The matter was escalated to senior police officials, who ordered a preliminary inquiry, and Ayush Gupta was appointed as Inquiry Officer.
During the inquiry, it was revealed that the complainant and his associates were allegedly transporting a large sum of cash, suspected to be hawala money, in a creta vehicle. The inquiry further disclosed that the information regarding such transportation had reached the then SDOP, Pooja Pandey (co-accused), who acted on the said information and conducted a raid with her team.
It was alleged that after intercepting the vehicle and recovering the cash, the raiding party attempted to negotiate a settlement, demanding 75% of the recovered amount.
The petitioner was posted as a constable in the crime branch and was implicated for allegedly passing on prior information. He was primarily implicated based on call detail records indicating telephonic contact between the petitioner, the informer and the co-accused persons.
The inquiry officer, relying primarily on mobile phone call detail records and forensic analysis, concluded that the petitioner and the informer were in contact before and after the alleged incident.
Therefore, on the basis of the inquiry report, a FIR was registered, and a charge sheet was filed against all the accused, including the petitioner.
The counsel for the petitioner conteded that he was not a member of the raiding party and had no role in the interception of money. The entire case of the prosecution rests solely on the call detail records, which only indicate that the calls were made but do not disclose the contents or nature of the communication.
The court, regarding the objection on maintainability of the petitioner, reiterated that the availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, particularly if the petitioner can demonstrate that continuing the proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
The bench further noted that, in the present case, there was no direct material indicating the petitioner's alleged participation in intercepting or negotiating money. There was no incriminating evidence against the petitioner. The court also noted that no call detail or communication was brought on record to indicate any interaction between the petitioner and the complainant party.
Therefore, the bench held that in the absence of communication, the mere existence of calls without substantive content demonstrating a prior meeting of minds or agreement to commit an illegal act cannot by itself constitute criminal conspiracy.
Therefore, the bench held that, "In the absence of any corroborative material, mere existence of call records, without more, is insufficient to infer complicity or establish any nexus between the petitioner and the alleged offence".
Thus, the bench held that the material on record failed to disclose any meeting of minds, prior agreement or concerted action on the part of the petitioner so as to constitute an offence of conspiracy. Therefore, the court allowed the petition and set aside the chargesheet and consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Case Title: Pramod Kumar Soni v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-12943-2026
For Petitioner: Advocates Ankit Saxena and Arihant Tiwari
For State: Deputy Advocate General Abhijeet Awasthy