- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2697 CRL.P No. 12387 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12387 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI VENU S/O SRIRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT KADIRANNAGARIPALLI VILLAGE, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA -561 207 2. SRI MANJUNATHA, S/O NARASIMHAPP AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT TEEMAKALAPALLI VILLAGE, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA -561 207 3. SRI. VISHWANATHA, S/O CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT 16TH WARD, BAGEPALLI TOWN, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 207 4. SRI. NARESH, S/O NARASIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT 23RD WARD BAGEPALLI TOWN BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA 561207 5. SRI VINOD KUMAR, S/O K. SEENAPPA, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2697 CRL.P No. 12387 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT 12TH WARD BAGEPALLI TOWN, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 207 6. SRI. RAGHU S/O LATE SRINIVASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT PATHABAGEPALLI VILLAGE, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 207 7. SRI. CHETHAN, S/O ADINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT 23RD WARD BAGEPALLI TOWN, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 207 8. SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY, S/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT 3RD WARD BAGEPALLI TOWN, BAGPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA -561207 9. SRI. VENKATESH, S/O SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT 3RD WARD BAGEPALLI TOWN, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 207 10. MR. ANJINAPPA T.L. S/O LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT TURIKESHAVALLI, CHAKAVELU POST, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA- 563 124 WORKING AS HC-173, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2697 CRL.P No. 12387 of 2025 TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 563 207 …PETITIONERSS (BY SRI. RAJESHA SHETTIGARA.,ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAGEPALLI P.S CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 563 207 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO. 931/2025 ARISED OUT OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 172/2025 REGISTERED BY THE BAGEPALLI POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGEPALLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERSS (ACCUSED NO.1 TO 10) FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 87 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.931/2025 arised out of FIR in Crime No.172/2025 registered by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2697 CRL.P No. 12387 of 2025 the Bagepalli Police pending on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Bagepalli, Chikkaballapura as against the Petitioners (Accused No. 1 to 10) for offence punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021 vide Annexure-H; ii. Pass such other order or direction that deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.05.2025, PSI of Bagepalli Police Station, Chikkaballapura Sub- Division, had filed a complaint at about 08.30 p.m. stating that when he was patrolling, he received credible information from another police inspector through phone that in the land of one Manjunath situated at Theemakalapalli, some persons were gambling by playing cards. As such, he went to the said place at 8.40 p.m., and on that basis, a panchnama was prepared. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the Petitioners is that the statement of all the witnesses indicates that the raid took place at 6.40 p.m. and not at 8.40 p.m. as indicated in the complaint and/or the charge - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2697 CRL.P No. 12387 of 2025 sheet which has been filed. When all the witnesses indicated that the raid was conducted at 6.30 p.m., on that ground, he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed and the proceedings against the Petitioners are required to be quashed. 4. Having gone through the papers, it is seen that all the witnesses have adverted to the occurrence of the raid at 6.30 p.m. Taking on face value, subject to the trial being conducted, the said witnesses’ statements indicate that the raid had occurred at 6.30 p.m., and the allegations made as regard to various offences are sought to be supported by the said witnesses. Mainly because they say a different time, which has been mentioned in the charge sheet, would not enure to the benefit of the Petitioners seeking for quashing the proceedings inasmuch as it would always be available for the respondents to lead proper and cogent evidence to support the prosecution. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2697 CRL.P No. 12387 of 2025 5. The issue as regards the discrepancy in the time being a disputed question of fact, this Court on that basis cannot exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code. 6. In that view of the matter, reserving all the defences available to the Petitioners, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18