Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 44155 (KAR)

GOVIND S/O MOHAN HOTKAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/100936/2025 · 2025-02-24

Hemant Chandangoudar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3673 CRL.P No. 100936 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100936 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. GOVIND S/O. MOHAN HOTKAR AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. TAXI DRIVER, R/AT. NEW AYODHYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020. 2. GAJANAN S/O. BABURAV KATAVE AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT. TORAVI HAKKAL, CHATNI CHAWL, MAHAVEER GALLI, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HUBBALLI SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, HUBBALI, REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SE. 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE COGNIZANCE DATED 01.06.2022 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO. 1 AND 3/PETITIONERS IN HUBBALLI SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 72/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HUBBALLI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 78(1)(A) (6) OF K.P. ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.28 12:29:45 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3673 CRL.P No. 100936 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, who is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 78(1)(A)(6) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (KP Act), is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that the complainant, upon receiving credible information that some unknown persons were involved in cricket betting, went to the spot and found that the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 3 were engaged in betting on a cricket match during IPL-2022 between Royal Challengers Bengaluru and Gujarat Titans. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondent/State. 4. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.4090/2023, disposed of on 16.8.2023, at paragraph Nos.7 and 8 has held as follows: "7. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No.2929/2021 at para-12 has held as follows: “12. One of the petitioners is bookie said to have involved in betting. Sri Hashmath Pasha has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket vs Cricket Association of Bihar and others (2016 (8) SCC 535) where it is observed that betting is to be legalized. It was argued by the respondent that betting amounts to gaming which is an offence under the Karnataka Police Act. If Section 2(7) of the Karnataka Police Act is seen, its explanation very clearly says that game of chance does not include any athletic game or sport. Cricket is a sport and therefore even if betting takes place, it cannot be brought within the ambit of definition of ‘gaming' found in Karnataka Police Act." 8. Admittedly, the accused No.4 is alleged to have been found betting on the cricket match, and the coordinate Bench of this Court has held that cricket is a sport, and therefore even if betting takes place, it - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3673 CRL.P No. 100936 of 2025 cannot be brought within the ambit of definition of gaming found in Karnataka Police Act. Hence, in the absence of essential elements so as to constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 78(ii) of the Karnataka Police Act, the registration of FIR for the aforesaid offence stands vitiated. Hence, the continuation of criminal investigation will be an abuse of process of law.” 5. A co-ordinate Bench having held that Cricket is a sport and therefore, even if betting takes place, it cannot be brought within the ambit of definition of ‘gaming’ under Section 2(7) of the KP Act, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.3171/2022 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, insofar as petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27