Karnataka High Court

Sri Sudhindra Prakash Shinde vs State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2022

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                            1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.7923/2020

BETWEEN

SRI.SUDHINDRA PRAKASH SHINDE,
S/O SRI.PRAKASH SHINDE,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.1, 5TH MAIN,
1ST CROSS, 2ND STAGE, 2ND PHASE, DOMLUR,
BANGALORE - 560 071.
                                               ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI.A.S.PONNANNA, SENIOR ADVOCATE]


AND

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA,
      BY CITY CRIME BRANCH POLICE
      (OTHER CRIME WING),
      BANGALORE.
      REPRESENTED BY
      STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.    SRI.K.PRAKASH,
      POLICE INSPECTOR - CCB SIT,
      N.T.PET MAIN ROAD,
      BANGALORE - 560 002.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI.SHANKAR H.S., HCGP FOR R1]
                               2




     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C.   PRAYING   TO   QUASH     THE  ENTIRE    CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER PENDING ON THE
FILE OF I ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.2939/2020 FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B) AND 420 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

Heard Sri. A.S. Ponnanna, learned Senior counsel

appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for

respondent No.1 - State.

2. The petitioner calls in question the proceedings in

C.C.No.2939/2020 registered for offences punishable under

Sections 120B and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would

submit that against the other accused in C.C.No.2939/2020, the

Court has quashed the proceedings in two different petitions;

one in Crl.P.No.2929/2020 and connected cases disposed on

10.01.2022 and the other in Crl.P.No.567/2022 by its order

dated 31.01.2022 by following the judgment of the Apex Court in

the case of BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET VS CRICKET

ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR AND OTHERS1. This Court by order dated

31.01.2022 passed in Crl.P.No.567/2022, has held as follows:

"3. The case of the prosecution is that one

Prakasha, the Police Officer, City Crime Branch

(Special investigating), Bengaluru registered a

complaint on 06.11.2019 alleging that while

interrogating the cricket players, coaches, and

owners of franchises in connection with Crime

No.124/2019 came to know about match fixing of

the KPL cricket matches held between 15th and

31st August of the year 2019 and gave a report

about it to the Cubbon Park Police Station. This

resulted in the registering of the FIR against the

petitioner for the above said offences. After

investigating the matter, the police have filed a

charge sheet against the petitioner and other

(2016) 8 SCC 535

accused persons, and the same is challenged by

the petitioner before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly

argued on the point that the co-accused persons

had filed a criminal petition before this Court, which

came to be allowed and the criminal proceedings

initiated against accused Nos.1 to 4 were quashed

by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in

Crl.P.No.2929/2020 and connected matters dated

10.01.2022. He further contended that the

allegations against this petitioner and accused No.2

are one and the same and that he has been

granted relief of quashing the criminal proceedings

initiated against him. A co-ordinate Bench of this

Court categorically held that the match fixing has to

be considered by only BCCI, who has the authority

to initiate disciplinary action, but in this case, the

Cricket Board has not taken any action against the

accused persons. Therefore, an offence punishable

under Section 420 of IPC does not attract,

considering all the aspects, the Co-Ordinate Bench

of this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings

in the above said petitions. He further contended

that the allegation against this petitioner in the case

is that he has instructed accused No.1-Gautam, the

Captain and Wicket Keeper, to play slowly. In fact,

he has played a game and won the match against

the Shivamogga Lions team by super over, and he

has scored 57 runs in 52 balls and the game was

over by super over. In another match with Mysore

Warriors, where accused No.1 scored 92 runs in 50

balls and remained not out in the match.

Ultimately, the opposite team won the match by

just one run. If at all, there was any conspiracy

instructed by this petitioner to play slowly, the runs

could have been very less than the balls, but he

has scored well and won the matches. Such being

the case, a false case has been registered against

the petitioner only to harass the petitioner. Hence,

he prayed for quashing the proceedings initiated

against the petitioner.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader

objected to the criminal petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner-accused No.5 and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent-State and

perusing the records, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this

Court in the above said petitions dated 10.01.2022

has held at paragraphs-10, 11 and 12 which read

as under:

"10. However, the other common point urged by all the counsel is worth acceptance. According to the prosecution match fixing amounts to cheating and therefore the offence under section 420 IPC has been invoked in the charge sheet. For invoking offence under section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients to be present are deception, dishonest inducement of a person to deliver any property or

to alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security. It was argued by Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa that the cricket lovers go to watch the match by buying tickets and thereby they are induced to part with their property i.e. their money. Of course money is a property, but his argument that they are induced to buy tickets cannot be accepted. They may have a feeling that they are going to witness a fair game being played, but, they buy the tickets voluntarily. So, question of inducement to buy ticket can be ruled out.

11. It is true that if a player indulges in match fixing, a general feeling will arise that he has cheated the lovers of the game. But, this general feeling does not give rise to an offence. The match fixing may indicate dishonesty, indiscipline and mental corruption of a player and for this purpose the BCCI is the authority to initiate disciplinary action. If the bye-laws of the BCCI provide for initiation of disciplinary action against a player, such an action is permitted but, registration of an FIR on the ground that a crime punishable under section 420 IPC has been committed, is not permitted. Even if the entire charge sheet averments are taken to be true on their face value, they do not constitute an offence.

12. One of the petitioners is a 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 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."

7. Finally, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this

Court has considered the fact that the allegations

found in the charge sheet do not constitute an

offence under Section 420 of IPC and, therefore, an

offence under Section 120B cannot be invoked

against the accused persons. One of the accused

persons is an owner, and this petitioner is also the

owner of the team, namely Bellary Tuskers. In

view of the judgment already delivered by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court, the allegation against

this petitioner is also one and the same. Therefore,

this petitioner is also entitled to the same relief.