Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11708 CRL.P No. 3388 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. 3388 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATHA S/O KUMARA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC: LABOURER, R/O KAREKATTE VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SANTHEBENNUR POLICE STATION, SANTHEBENNUR CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 552 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 003. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO.149/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI (CRIME NO.243/2024 OF SANTHEBENNUR POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT CHARGE SHEETED FOR THE O/P/U/S 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11708 CRL.P No. 3388 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, who is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, has approached this Court seeking relief.
2. The Circle Police Inspector, Santhebennur Circle, lodged a complaint with the Police Sub-Inspector, Santhebennur Police Station, stating that on 23.12.2024, at 5:30 p.m., while patrolling with his staff, he received credible information that the petitioner-accused was engaging in Matka gambling by inviting the public at large, promising a return of Rs.80/- for every one rupee invested. Subsequently, the Sub-Inspector of Police submitted a requisition to the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri, seeking permission to investigate the matter under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., as the offence alleged against the petitioner was non-cognizable. The learned Magistrate, upon perusal of the request, noted that some unknown person was engaged in gambling at a public place and that a prima facie case existed to grant permission for investigation.
3. The Court has heard the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent-State.
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11708 CRL.P No. 3388 of 2025
4. In the FIR, the informant has clearly stated that the petitioner was engaged in gambling at a public place. However, the requisition does not mention the petitioner’s name; instead, it refers to an unknown person allegedly engaged in gambling at a public place. The Sub-Inspector of Police received the information on 23.12.2024, at 7:00 p.m., but the Trial Court’s order sheet does not specify the time at which the requisition was received for obtaining an
order under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. A raid was conducted at 8:30 p.m. on the same day, during which playing cards, cash, and some chits were seized from the petitioner in the presence of two panch witnesses.
5. However, none of the statements from members of the public who allegedly witnessed the petitioner gambling in a public place were recorded. Apart from the statements made by police personnel, no independent witnesses were examined. Mere recovery of Matka cards along with a cash amount of Rs.3,95,000/- is insufficient to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner was found gambling in a public place, as required under the Karnataka Police Act.
6. Therefore, in the absence of substantial evidence to establish the allegations against the petitioner, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
- 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC:11708 CRL.P No. 3388 of 2025
7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.149/2025, pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri (Crime No.243/2024), insofar as they relate to the petitioner, are hereby quashed.
Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE
HR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3