MP High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Man Accused Of Routing IPL Betting Proceeds Through Shell Companies

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR against a man accused of routing illegal IPL betting proceeds through shell companies, holding that a co-accused's benefit from an earlier quashing order cannot be claimed as a matter of right without showing that the evidence against both persons was identical.

A single judge bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi was hearing a petition filed by applicant Hitesh Kumar Tarwani under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 482, CrPC), seeking quashment of an FIR registered against him at Police Station Madan Mahal, Jabalpur, along with the pending trial arising from it.

The case traces back to April 23, 2022, when police, acting on information about illegal IPL betting, raided the residence of co-accused Sunil Thakur, where Thakur and another man, Deepak Patel, were allegedly found running betting operations. Mobile phones, registers, a calculator, a television set, a set-top box and cash were seized during the raid.

A month later, on May 19, 2022, investigators conducted a second raid, this time at two rooms in RK Tower in Jabalpur's Wright Town. This raid yielded a much bigger haul: cash amounting to Rs 21,55,600, along with cheque books, company seals, loan books, property documents and mobile phones. According to the prosecution, statements recorded from two other accused, Manoj Kumar Sanpal and Deepak Rajak, linked these seized funds and articles to several individuals, including Tarwani. Investigators went on to allege that a wider network of shell companies had been floated specifically to route the proceeds of betting and disguise the money trail. Once the probe concluded, a charge-sheet was filed and Tarwani was made an accused in the ongoing trial, Regular Criminal Trial No.5603/2024, along with several others named in the investigation.

Appearing for Tarwani, advocate Ayush Shivhare argued that his client had been dragged into the case purely on the strength of memorandum statements given by co-accused Sanpal and Rajak, and that the seizure made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act showed no direct link to Tarwani. He submitted that there was no recovery from Tarwani himself, and no documentary, financial or electronic evidence connecting him to the alleged offences, arguing that a co-accused's statement alone cannot serve as substantive evidence. Shivhare leaned heavily on parity, pointing out that this very court had already quashed proceedings against another co-accused, Sanjay Sanpal, in a separate order, and that the material against Tarwani was "substantially similar." He also relied on the court's ruling in Bherulal vs. State of M.P., decided in February 2024.

Additional Advocate General B.D. Singh, appearing for the State, opposed the plea, telling the court that the investigation had uncovered Tarwani's role in a "larger conspiracy" involving betting operations and the routing of proceeds through various entities. He argued that the charge-sheet disclosed sufficient prima facie material and that the questions raised by the defence were factual disputes best left for trial. Singh also sought to distinguish the Sanjay Sanpal order, arguing it turned on facts specific to that accused and could not be extended automatically to Tarwani.

The court agreed with the State. It observed that the charge-sheet and accompanying material "prima facie indicate the involvement of several persons, including the present applicant, in the alleged activities," and that whether Tarwani was actually involved was a matter to be tested through evidence before the trial court. On the parity argument, Justice Joshi held that the principle "cannot be applied mechanically, especially where the role attributed to the accused persons and the evidence collected against them require independent evaluation," adding that Tarwani had failed to show his case was identical to Sanjay Sanpal's.

Concluding that the allegations were not "so absurd or inherently improbable as to warrant interference" under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC), the court held that the pleas raised by Tarwani were matters of defence, appropriately left to be argued during the trial, and dismissed the petition accordingly.

Case Title: Hitesh Kumar Tarwani vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: August 11, 2026

Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi