- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14784 CRL.P No. 211 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.211 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. ATHMANANDA S/O LATE MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT HODIKEHOSAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 562120. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN S, ADV.,) AND: STATE BY CEN CRIME PS RAMANAGARA, REPRESENTED BY SPP KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BANGALORE - 560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PUSHALATHA B, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.1500/2024 IN CRIME NO.58/2021 REGISTERED BY CEN CRIME PS, RAMANAGARA FOR OFFENSES P/U/S 78(1)(a)(vi) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14784 CRL.P No. 211 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.1500/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 78(1)(a)(vi) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The police conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet only for the offences under Section 78(1)(a)(vi) of the Police Act and dropped Section 420 of the IPC which is, in clarity, indicative of the fact that Section 420 of the IPC was deliberately drawn into the proceedings to get over the permission of the Magistrate to register a crime as obtaining under sub-Section (2) of Section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that qua co-accused No.6, the Court has passed the following order in Crl.P.No.9076/2024: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14784 CRL.P No. 211 of 2025 "The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.1500/2024, pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna, for the offences punishable under Sections 78(1)(a)(vi) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. 2. Heard Sri Srinivas V., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgment rendered by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.3849/2021, disposed on 16.06.2021, which read as follows: "…. …. …. 6. The criminal law is set into motion on the basis of the compliant lodged by the Head Constable of the Police Station. It is alleged in the complaint that he had got credible information that the accused persons named in the complaint were indulged in cricket betting, and thereby they were cheating the public. However, the fact remains that he has not disclosed as to the identity of the person who has informed him that the accused persons were cheating the public. In the absence of a complaint alleging that the complainant has been cheated and he has been dishonestly induced to deliver my property, the offence under Section 420 IPC does not get attracted. The offence under Section 420 IPC gets attracted when the accused is alleged to have induced the complainant to deliver him property or intentionally induces the person to do or omit to do anything which he would otherwise not have done or omitted. In the case on hand, such a material is completely absent. 7. In Crl.P.No.3365/2016 and connected matters decided on 07.04.2017, this Court has observed that in cases where the police have registered the case under Section 420 IPC only with an intention to get over the mandatory requirement of Section 155(2) Cr.PC and to proceed with the investigation according to their whims and fancies, such criminal proceedings cannot be sustained. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14784 CRL.P No. 211 of 2025 8. In Crl.P.No.967/2018 decided on 04.06.2018, in similar circumstances wherein the accused were involved in IPL cricket betting, this Court at paragraphs 4 & 5 has observed as under: "4. As could be seen from the entire charge sheet papers, no independent witnesses have been examined with reference to the betting and who are all the persons who have participated in the betting and paid money to the accused persons and how much money being paid or whether any complaint alleged was made in this regard or not. Therefore, there cannot be any clap without two hands, unilaterally, the accused cannot play gambling without the help of the public at large as mentioned in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet. None of the witnesses have been examined by the Police to show who is the person who has actually misappropriated in not giving money back to them. Under the above said circumstances, when the offence itself is not constituted on the basis of the charge sheet papers, nothing remains for consideration and hence the proceedings deserves to be quashed. 5. One the important aspect that has to be taken into consideration at the initial stage is that, the Police have registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, but there is absolutely no allegations of whatsoever in the FIR in order to attract Section 420 of IPC. Perhaps, it may be the reason the Police have invoked Section 420 of IPC without any substance so as to avoid the provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr.PC. and taking permission to investigate a non-cognizable offence. The attitude of the Police, in my opinion, has to be deprecated, if they act in such a manner. Further, the court has to view hereinafter seriously. Therefore, in my opinion, the Commissioner of Police has to take appropriate measure in this regard in properly guiding the Police Officers who are in the helm of affairs during investigation." 9. In the present case, the fact remains that the police have not obtained any permission under Section 155(2) Cr.PC, and therefore, even the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under Section 78 of K.P.Act is also not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14784 CRL.P No. 211 of 2025 permissible. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of further proceedings in the case would amount to abuse of the process of law and for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, it is necessary to quash the same. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: 10. Criminal petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in Crime No.35/2021 registered by Thilak Park Police Station, Tumakuru, against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 34 IPC and Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, now pending before the III Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Tumakuru, stands quashed.” In the light of the afore-extracted judgment rendered by the co-ordinate benches of this Court and in the facts obtaining in the case at hand, which covers the issue on all its fours, I deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings, qua the petitioner. 4. For the reasons aforementioned, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.1500/2024, pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna, stands quashed. I.A.No.1/2024 is disposed, as a consequence." 4. In the light of the order passed by this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14784 CRL.P No. 211 of 2025 (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.1500/2024, pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Channapatna, stands quashed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed, as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 109