IPL Betting Case | Parity Can't Be Applied Mechanically To Quash Proceedings Against Co-Accused: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to quash a cheating FIR against a man over alleged betting in IPL matches, noting that the accused's plea for parity with co-accused against whom FIR was quashed, cannot be applied mechanically when the evidence against the accused needs independent evaluation. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 322]The counsel for the petitioner had argued that the FIR and consequential proceedings against co-accused Sanjay Sanpal were already quashed by the High Court. It was claimed that the allegations and material against the petitioner were similar to those of the mentioned co-accused, and therefore, he should also be entitled to the same benefit based on the principle of parity. To this the bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed:"The principle of parity cannot be applied mechanically, especially where the role attributed to the accused persons and the evidence collected against them require independent evaluation. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the material available against him is identical in all respects to that considered by this Court while granting relief to the co-accused". The petition was filed seeking quashing of the FIR for cheating (Section 420), abetment (Section 109), criminal conspiracy (Section 120B), and offences under the Public Gambling Act. Per the facts, the police received information about illegal IPL activities and conducted a raid at the residence of co-accused Sunil Thakur, wherein Sunil Thakur and Deepal Patel were found to be engaged in betting operations. During the investigation, another raid was conducted wherein cash amounting to ₹21 lakhs was recovered along with other material. Per the prosecution, the statements of the co-accused disclosed that the seized articles were connected with several persons, including the petitioner. The investigation revealed that several shell companies were allegedly created and utilized for batting, and therefore, a chargesheet was filed and the petitioner was marked as an accused. The counsel for the petitioner argued that he was implicated by the statements of the co-accused. The counsel argued that the alleged seized material does not disclose any connection with the petitioner. The counsel claimed that the statement of the co-accused is not sufficient to constitute substantive evidence against the petitioner and therefore continuation of criminal proceedings against him would be illegal. Opposing the petitioner, the Advocate General for the State argued that the investigation has revealed the involvement of the petitioner in a larger conspiracy relating to illegal betting operations. It was submitted that during the investigation, material was collected indicating the petitioner's involvement with co-accused persons and alleged activities under investigation. The Advocate General argued that the order passed in favour of co-accused Sanjay Sanpal was based on facts and material peculiar to that accused and does not entitle the petitioner to similar relief. The court noted that the FIR and Chargesheet filed on record show that substantial material was collected during the investigation regarding betting operations, seizure of cash, and company-related documents. The statement recorded by the agency prima facie indicates the involvement of several persons, including the petitioner, in the alleged activities. Rejecting the petitioner's contention seeking parity with co-accused, the court noted that the order relied on by the petitioner shows that relief to co-accused was passed on the basis of facts and material available for that particular accused. Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the material against him was identical to that of the co-accused, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Case Title: Hitesh Kumar Tarwani v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-58230-2025Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 322For Petitioner: Advocate Ashish Shivhare For State: Additional Advocate General BD SinghClick here to read/download the Order

IPL Betting Case | Parity Can't Be Applied Mechanically To Quash Proceedings Against Co-Accused: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

IPL Betting Case | Parity Can't Be Applied Mechanically To Quash Proceedings Against Co-Accused: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers