Karnataka High Court
Mr. Anand vs State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4929
CRL.P No. 633 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 633 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. MR. ANAND
S/O SAMPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O NO.33,
BHAVANINAGAR SLUM,
KEMPEGOWDA NAGARA,
JAYAPURA GUTTAHALLI,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
2. MR. BHARATH S
S/O SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
Digitally signed by R/O NO.47, 7TH MAIN,
VEDAVATHI A K
Location: High PALACE GUTTAHALLI,
Court of Karnataka
MALLESWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
3. MR. GIRISH
S/O MOHAN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/O NO.4, 16TH CROSS,
MARUTHINAGAR,
KENGERI UPANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 060.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4929
CRL.P No. 633 of 2024
4. MR. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O BOJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO.28, 2ND CROSS,
CHOWDESHWARINAGAR,
LAGGERE,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
5. MR. VINOD
S/O NANJUNDAIAH,
AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/O NO.3/323,
C.R.B NAGAR,
CHAMARAJPETE,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
6. MR. KANTHARAJU K
S/O KEMPARASIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO.450/A, 1ST CROSS,
1ST MAIN ROAD,
SRINIVASANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 050.
7. MR MANJU
S/O SELVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O NO.204,
LAKSHMANAPURI,
GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
8. MR. MANJU
S/O KRISHNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O NO.16, BILEKAHALLI,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:4929
CRL.P No. 633 of 2024
4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
9. MR. SURESH
S/O N. MALLANNA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O NO. J-73, 11/2,
1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
VIDYARANYANAGAR,
MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
10. MR. RAJESH
S/O SHANKAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/O NO/59, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
5TH CROSS,
CHAMARAJPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
11. MR. BALAKRISHNA @ KRISHNA
S/O ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/O NO.35, NEAR BBMP OFFICE,
AMRUTHAHALLI 1ST CROSS,
BENGALURU - 560 092.
12. MR. MANJUNATH
S/O MUDDACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO.57, 7TH A CROSS,
SWATHANTHRAYODHARA NAGARA,
LAGGERE,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:4929
CRL.P No. 633 of 2024
13. C. JAYRAM
S/O CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NO.3975, 7TH CROSS,
2ND STAGE,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 021.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY:
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE- 560 001.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA A., HCGP FOR R1 & R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO 1) QUASH THE FIR BEARING
NO.118/2019 ALONG WITH THE INFORMATION DATED
27.11.2019 REGISTERED WITH THE RESPONDENT NO.1
POLICE STATION WHEREIN THE PETITIONERS HEREIN ARE
ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S
78 AND 79 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT(ANNEXED VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND A1).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:4929
CRL.P No. 633 of 2024
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to
13, under section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing criminal
proceedings in C.C.No.9848/2020 arising out of FIR
No.118/2019 registered by Sheshadripuram police station for
the offences punishable under sections 78 and 79 of the
Karnataka Police Act (herein after referred to as "KP Act"),
pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic court 1)
Mayo Hall, Bengluru.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
HCGP
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the suomotu
complaint registered by the PSI of Sheshadripuram police, on
27.11.2019 alleging that he has received preliminary
information that the petitioners were playing game of chance,
Andar Bahar at Sree Rama Association Club, within the
jurisdiction of Seshadripuram Police station and he has
obtained the permission of the Magistrate and Assistant
commissioner of police (ACP) and raided the spot and seized
amount of Rs.12,440/- and also table and other banners etc.,
NC: 2024:KHC:4929
Thereafter, seized the same under Panchanama under section
255 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, registered FIR and filed charge
sheet, which is under the challenged.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended the
provisions of sections 78 and 79 of KP Act, are the non
cognizable offences. The police officer has not obtained the
permission under section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C., and on the other
hand he has obtained permission only for conducting raid,
which is nothing but search warrant. Therefore, without
permission of the Magistrate registering FIR and filing charge
sheet is not sustainable under the law. In support of the
contention he has relied upon the judgment of the coordinate
bench of this court in Crl.P.No.8396/2017 in case of
Sri.Manjuanth E and Ors Vs State and Anr.
5. Learned HCGP seriously objected the petition.
6. Having heard the arguments and perused the records.
On perusal of the same, the permission said to be obtained by
the police officer is available at Annexure -G, where it reveals
police officers had permission to conduct raid in the said place.
Accordingly, the learned Magistrate permitted to conduct the
NC: 2024:KHC:4929
raid within the legal parameters. On perusal of the said order,
it cannot be construed as permission granted by the Magistrate
under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. The request made by the PSI
also, cannot be construed as permission obtained as per
Section 155 (1) of Cr.P.C. On the other hand, it reveals it is
nothing but authorization for conducting raid or a warrant for
conducting raid, search and raid, as per proviso to Section 81
of Karnataka Police Act. Wherein, the proviso says that before
conducting search and seizure of the gaming house or any
place, the police officer shall obtain warrant or permission of
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Commissioner of Police, or ACP
or DySP as the case may be under the limit of Commissioner or
Sub Jurisdictional Magistrate or a Magistrate or DySP in respect
of the Rural District. The proviso says the warrant cannot be
authorized by the Commissioner of police, Deputy
commissioner of police,, ACP or police or Magistrate or
Superintendent of Police, for conducting the raid. The
permission granted by the Magistrate is only nothing but a
permission accorded for conducting raid, but not registering FIR
and filing the charge sheet. Such being the case, it is a clear
case of violation of section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C., which is a
NC: 2024:KHC:4929
mandatory provision not followed by the police, while
registering the FIR and filing the charge sheet. Therefore, the
criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
Consequently criminal is proceedings against thee
petitioner in C.C.No.9848/2020 arising out of FIR No.118/2019
registered by Sheshadripuram police station on the file of
Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic court 1) Mayo Hall, Bengluru, is
hereby quashed.
However the amount and the other material seized by the
police are confiscated to the State.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AKV
CT:SK
