- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25115 CRL.P No. 9502 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9502 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. SUDARSHAN SHETTY, S/O RAJEEVA SHETTY, AGE 28 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 2-116, “GURU RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA”, NADA, KUNDAPURA – 576 230, UDUPI DISTRICT. 2. TEJ MOHANDAS SHETTY @ TEJAS M. SHETTY, AGE 27 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 2/387, VARAHI ROAD, KUNDAPURA PO SIDDAPURA – 576 229, UDUPI DISTRICT. 3. PRAJWAL SHETTY S/O. KUSHAL SHETTY, AGE 28 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 1/59/B, SANNADHI, N.H. 66, PETE, SHIROOR, KUNDAPURA – 576 228, UDUPI DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANDESH SHETTY T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE. HSR LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY - 560 102. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25115 CRL.P No. 9502 of 2025 2. SRI. SURESH LAMANI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, POLICE OFFICER, H.C. 8765, HSR LAYOUT POLICE STATION, 27TH MAIN, I SECTOR, BENGALURU CITY – 560 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGESHWARAPPA K., HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR INSTITUTED U/S 78 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1962 IN CRIME NO.191/2025 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT-I), BENGALURU CITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners seek for the following reliefs: a) Allow the Criminal Petition. b) Call for records in Crime No.191/2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Traffic Court-1), Bengaluru City; c) Quash the FIR instituted under Section 78 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1962, in Crime No.191/2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Traffic Court-1), Bengaluru City. d) Grant such other relief/reliefs that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25115 CRL.P No. 9502 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, issuance of notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mr. Pavan Shetty Vs. State of Karnataka and another – Crl.P.No.3943/2023 dated 02.08.2023 and the present petition may be disposed of in the above terms. 4. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue in controversy in the present petition is covered by the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case Mr. Pavan Shetty (supra), wherein it is held as under: “The petitioner and other accused are sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section78(i) and 78(iii) of the Karnataka Police Act. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25115 CRL.P No. 9502 of 2025 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 8.4.2023, when the Police Inspector along with the Head Constable was on rounds, they saw two cars, which were parked, and four to five persons were standing, and on apprehending them, it was found that, the accused were checking the mobile phones, they were betting on the cricket match between Chennai and Mumbai Cricket match, and playing betting per ball to ball and seized the mobile phones, currency notes of Rs.26,000/- and two cars. The cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences is impugned in this petition. 3. Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that, conducting of investigation before obtaining an order under Section 155(2) of Cr.PC is impermissible. He further submits that even if betting for cricket match takes place, it cannot be brought within the ambit of definition of gaming found in Karnataka Police Act. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P No.2929/2020 and connected matters (DD 10.1.2022). 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader submits that, the charge sheet material discloses that, the petitioners along with others were betting on the cricket match, and the veracity of the allegations can be considered only after full fledged trial, and at this stage, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate does not warrant any interference. 5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25115 CRL.P No. 9502 of 2025 6. The offence punishable under Section 78(i)(iii) of the Karnataka Police Act is a non-cognizable offence. Before conducting the search and seizure, the police were required to obtain an order from the learned Magistrate as specified under Section 155 of Cr.PC. In the instant case, the permission was not obtained to conduct search, seizure and arrest the accused. Hence, the charge sheet laid by the police stands vitiated. 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 punishable under Section 78(ii) of the Karnataka Police Act, the registration of FIR culminating in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offence - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25115 CRL.P No. 9502 of 2025 stands vitiated. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceeding will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) Criminal petition is allowed. ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.58/2023 of Kota Police Station, Brahmavar Circle, Udupi District and the order dated 8.4.2023 passed in N.C.No.63/2023 by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura are hereby quashed.” 5. In view of the above, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition in terms of the order passed in the case of Mr. Pavan Shetty (supra). 6. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned criminal proceedings in FIR in Crime No.191/2025, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Traffic Court -1), Bengaluru City, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS ; List No.: 3 Sl No.: 55