- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13625 CRL.P No. 3365 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3365 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. GURUSHANTHAIAH S/O CHIDANANDAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: HOTEL EMPLOYEE, R/O CHIRADONI VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVAPATNA POLICE STATION, SANTHEBENNUR CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 551. (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 003). …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.87/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHANNAGIRI (CRIME NO.5/2025 OF BASAVAPATNA POLICE STATION, SANTHEBENNUR CIRCLE, Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13625 CRL.P No. 3365 of 2025 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT CHARGE SHEETED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner in this Criminal Petition challenges the criminal proceedings initiated in C.C. No.87/2025 by the Learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri, Davangere District, for offences punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. 2. The prosecution’s case is that, on 06.01.2025, at approximately 11:30 p.m., the complainant, who was present at the police station, received credible information that the petitioner was engaged in matka gambling on a public road situated in front of his house. Following this, the jurisdictional police registered an F.I.R. and submitted it to the jurisdictional Magistrate for investigation. 3. After conducting an investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet dated 10.01.2025 against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent police had investigated the matter, which is a non-cognizable offence, without obtaining a speaking order or - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13625 CRL.P No. 3365 of 2025 mandatory permission as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. from the learned Magistrate. He contended that the allegations in the complaint do not disclose how the game of Andar-Bahar/matka gambling was played or in what manner bets were recorded. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that it was purely a game of chance and not a game of skill, as held by this Court in 1977 (1) KLJ 274. 4.1 Furthermore, he argued that the allegations in the F.I.R., complaint, and charge sheet are vague and that the materials produced by the prosecution do not satisfy the ingredients under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. Therefore, he contended that the proceedings against the accused are liable to be quashed. 5. The learned HCGP submitted that the petitioner had committed the alleged offence and that the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, are present in this case. 6. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard. 7. A perusal of the F.I.R. and complaint indicates that on 06.01.2025, at 11:00 a.m., a complaint was received by the police alleging that the petitioner was involved in the game of Andar-Bahar. At approximately 11:15 a.m., the police registered Crime No. 05/2025 and, for the purpose of investigation, sought necessary permission from the learned Magistrate. Permission for investigation was granted via - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13625 CRL.P No. 3365 of 2025 telephone to investigate the offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. 8. This Court, in the case of Vageppa Gurulinga v. State of Karnataka, Crl. P. 101997/2019, explained the mandatory compliance required under Section 155(1) and Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., holding: “9. Therefore, when the SHO of a police station receives a report regarding the commission of a non-cognizable offence, it is his duty to enter the substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate, as required under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the jurisdictional Magistrate is required to pass an order permitting the police officer to investigate the case as mandated by the provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. stated supra. Unless the police officer is permitted by an order of the jurisdictional Magistrate to investigate the non-cognizable offence, the police officer does not have the jurisdiction to investigate the matter and file a final report or charge sheet.” 9. In the present case, the petitioner is charged with a non-cognizable offence on the allegation that he was involved in the game of Andar-Bahar. The police conducted a search and seized cash amounting to Rs. 630/- from the petitioner without obtaining written permission from the learned Magistrate, as mandated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. 10. This Court, in the case of Manjunatha @ Dinesh vs. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 24577 of 2022, decided on 19.09.2023, held: “4. The charge sheet does not contain any material proving that the petitioners were playing ‘Andar Bahar’ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13625 CRL.P No. 3365 of 2025 with stakes as a game of chance and not as a game of skill. 5. This Court, in the case of Eranna and others v. State of Karnataka, reported in 1977 (1) KAR.L.J. 274, held that the charge against the accused was that they were found playing ‘Andar Bahar’ in a club. It was stated that ‘Andar Bahar’ is a game of chance, and unless the prosecution proves how the game was played and in what manner bets were recorded, it cannot be inferred that it was purely a game of chance and not a game of skill.” 11. In view of the enunciation of law by this Court in the aforementioned case, the police have not established that the petitioners were playing ‘Andar-Bahar’ with stakes as a game of chance rather than a game of skill. Furthermore, the lack of mandatory compliance with Section 155 of Cr.P.C. renders the continuation of the impugned proceedings an abuse of the process of law. 12. Accordingly, I pass the following. ORDER i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The Impugned Criminal proceedings initiated in C.C No. 87/2025 by the Learned Trial Court is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM/ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9