- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:843 CRL.P No. 102450 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102450 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: GAJANANA S/O. JANARDANSA HABIB AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT. RACHOTESHWAR NAGAR, GADAG-582101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY GADAG TOWN POLICE STATION, GADAG, ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE COGNIZANCE DATED 27.10.2021 AGAINST THE ACCUSED/ PETITIONER IN GADAG TOWN POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.80/2021 WHICH IS REGISTERED IN CC NO.4061/2021 ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC I COURT, AT GADAG FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 78(1) (A) (6) OF K.P. ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.22 15:00:19 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:843 CRL.P No. 102450 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 78 (3) of the Karnataka Police Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on receiving credible information that, some person is involved in cricket betting on a public road near Gadag Mulgund Naka, near KEB Office, the complainant after seeking permission from the learned Magistrate under Section 155 of Cr.P.C., conducted a raid and it was disclosed that the petitioner was involved in a betting on the cricket match. 3. The question as to whether the betting on the cricket match comes under the definition of “gaming” under Section 2(7) of the Karnataka Police Act was examined by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.4090/2023 disposed on 16.8.2023, wherein, at paras 7 and 8 it has ruled as follows: “7. The coordinate 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 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:843 CRL.P No. 102450 of 2024 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." 4. In the light of the above, even accepting that the petitioners were involved in betting on the cricket match, the same does not come under the definition of “gaming” as defined under Section 2(7) of the Karnataka Police Act, and therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners will be an abuse of process of the law and without jurisdiction. 5. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER a) The petition is allowed; b) The impugned proceedings in CC No.4061/2021 pending on the file of learned 1st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, I Court, Gadag, insofar it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR Ct:vh