- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14410 CRL.P No. 16731 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16731 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MANU M C S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT MALURPATTANA VILLAGE, MALURU HOBLI, CHANNAPATANA TALUK RAMANAGARA-562159 2. KRISHNAMURTHY @ KITTI S/O LATE SOMACHAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.301/302, 2ND CROSS, RAGAVENDRA ROAD, AGRAHARA, 7TH WARD, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA -562 159 3. NAGARJUNA V S/O VENKATARAMANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.152 NEAR ESHWARA TEMPLE M.G.ROAD, CHANNAPATANA TOWN RAMANAGARA -562159 4. VIJAYA C.M. @ SUKRUTH S/O C.M. MANJUNATH Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14410 CRL.P No. 16731 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT PARVATHI TEMPLE ROAD, CHIKKAMALURU, WARD NO.1 CHANNAPATANA TOWN RAMANAGARA -562159 5. SIDDEGOWDA S/O SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT KOODLU ROAD, CHIKKAMALURU, WARD NO.1 CHANNAPATANA TOWN RAMANAGARA -562159 &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY RAMANAGARA CENTRAL POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001 2. B.T. GOVIND P.I S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT HODKEHOSAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA - 562 159 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14410 CRL.P No. 16731 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.34/2025 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 78(1)(a)(vi) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM RAMANAGARA AS AGAINST THESE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court, seeking the following prayers: "a) Call for records in CC No 34/2025 on the file Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM Ramanagar, b) Quash all further proceedings in CC No 34/2025 registered for the offence punishable under section 78(1)(a)(vi) of Karnataka Police Act, on the file Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM Ramanagara as against these petitioners, in the interest of justice and equity and, c) Grant any other remedy deems fit in the facts and circumstance of the case." 2. Heard Sri. Srinivas V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14410 CRL.P No. 16731 of 2025 Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.3849/2021 disposed on 16.06.2021. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on identical circumstances of the offence of the cricket betting in the aforesaid judgment has held as follows: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this petition are, a complaint was lodged by one Ayub Jan who is the Head Constable of Thilak Park Police Station, Tumakuru, on 26.04.2021, alleging that he had credible information that persons named in the complaint were involved in IPL Cricket betting and they were collecting money from the public and cheating. Based on this complaint, FIR in Crime No.35/2021 was registered against six persons. Petitioner is arrayed as accused no.2 in the said FIR. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said FIR, he has approached this Court in this petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the police in order to avoid seeking permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.PC in respect of the offence punishable under Section 78 of the Karnataka Police Act (for short, 'K.P.Act'), have deliberately invoked Section 420 IPC. He submits that there is no complaint from anybody with regard to the alleged cheating. In the absence of any such complaint, Section 420 IPC cannot be invoked. He also submits that in respect of offence punishable under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14410 CRL.P No. 16731 of 2025 Section 78 of K.P.Act, which admissibly is a non- cognizable offence, the police are required to obtain permission under Section 155(2) Cr.PC before registering and investigating the case, which they have not done, and therefore, he prays to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that since an offence under Section 420 IPC has been invoked, it is not necessary to comply with the requirement of Section 155(2) Cr.PC and the investigation is under progress, and therefore, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the investigation. He submits that since a cognizable offence is alleged against the petitioner, a detailed investigation is necessary. 5. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP and also perused the material available on record. 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14410 CRL.P No. 16731 of 2025 and fancies, such criminal proceedings cannot be sustained. 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14410 CRL.P No. 16731 of 2025 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 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." 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 though would seek to refute the submissions, is not in a position to dispute the law as laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid judgment. 5. For the aforesaid reason, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.34/2025 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14410 CRL.P No. 16731 of 2025 CJM, Ramanagara stands quashed qua the petitioners. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21