Karnataka High Court
Nishant Singh Shekhawat vs State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19557
CRL.P No. 7557 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7557 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
NISHANT SINGH SHEKHAWAT
S/O DASHRATH SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO B-5, BRINDAVAN APARTMENT,
HOSUR ROAD, OPP ADUGODI POLICE STATION,
ADUGODI BANGALORE SOUTH
KARNATAKA 560030
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SYED KHALEEL PASHA, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BHARATHI NAGAR POLICE (CCE SE)
BENGALURU -560005.
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI REPRESENTED BY ITS HCGP/SPP,
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF BENGALURU-560001.
KARNATAKA
2. SRI S M NAGARAJU
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
CCB ORGANIZED CRIME PREVENTION WING,
N T PETE,
BENGALURU- 560053.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HARISH GANAPATHY HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN
C.C.NO.2937/2020 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.124/2019 REGISTERED
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19557
CRL.P No. 7557 of 2023
BY BHARATHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE
P/U/S 120(B) AND 420 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF I
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is accused No.6 in C.C.No.2937/2020.
Qua accused No.3, this Court in Crl.P.No.6386/2022 has
quashed the proceedings in terms of its order dated
07.09.2022. While so quashing, this Court has held as
follows:
"3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that issue in the lis stands covered by the
judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Crl.P.No.2929/2020 and connected
cases, disposed of on 10.01.2022, wherein this
Court has held as follows:
"8. I have considered the arguments.
Firstly, one point of argument regarding
registration of an FIR is to be dealt with. All the
counsel for the petitioners have fussed over this
aspect. It is true that the second respondent
made a report to the Cubbon Park police for
registration of FIR on the basis of information that
he gathered while interrogating a player in
connection with Crime No. 124/2019. It appears
NC: 2024:KHC:19557
that the information the second respondent
gathered is in the form of confession of an
accused and this is the reason for taking strong
objection for registration of FIR in Crime No.
197/2019 which has given rise to charge sheet in
the case on hand. Of course there is substance in
the argument that the confession statement of an
accused given before the police cannot be
referred to in view of bar contained in section 25
of the Indian Evidence Act. But, the said bar is to
the extent of proving the confession against the
accused who made it, there is no prohibition as
such to make use of any information that a police
officer comes to know for the first time regarding
a crime which might have taken place in the past
and not detected till then, while interrogating an
accused in connection with another case of crime.
Supposing that an accused himself goes to police
station and gives information about the offence
committed by him, the police in such a
circumstance can very well register an FIR and
this proposition is well established [Faddi vs
State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1964 SC
1850) and Aghnoo Nagesia vs State of Bihar
(AIR 1966 SC 119)]. If this is the position, why
a statement given by a co-accused regarding
another crime cannot be made use of for
registration of FIR. In fact many incidents of
NC: 2024:KHC:19557
theft, robbery or dacoity come to light only during
such interrogations. It may be stated further that
such statement can be made use of only for the
limited purpose of registration of FIR and it
cannot be used for proving it against an accused.
Registration of FIR is not the end in itself and it is
not a substantive piece of evidence also. Mere
registration of FIR in this manner does not lead to
convicting an accused, investigator has to collect
independent evidence and further the prosecution
must be able to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore the entire argument that
statement of a co-accused during interrogation in
connection with some other crime cannot form
basis for registration of FIR is totally unfounded.
9. Regarding the argument of Sri
Hashmath Pasha that statement recorded by
respondent No.2 during investigation in Crime No.
124/2019 has not been produced, it is to be
stated that production of such a statement is not
necessary. FIR is to be registered based on the
information relating to commission of a
cognizable offence. According to respondent No.2
he collected that information during interrogation
in Crime No. 124/2019. It was a confessional
statement of an accused and it forms part of the
record in Crime No. 124/2019. While a copy of
NC: 2024:KHC:19557
that statement could have been produced along
with report made by respondent No.2 to the
Cubbon Park police, its non-production has least
effect for, even if it is produced, it cannot be
proved against the accused in the present case.
The report of respondent No.2 shows information
that he collected regarding match fixing for the
KPL matches of the season 2019 and this much of
information can certainly be basis for registration
of FIR if really an offence has been committed.
Therefore this argument is also not acceptable.
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
NC: 2024:KHC:19557
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
NC: 2024:KHC:19557
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.
13. Sri Dhyan Chinnappa argued that
section 120B of IPC is an independent offence and
therefore notwithstanding the fact that
ingredients for section 420 IPC can be said to be
not there for argument sake, still the accused can
be prosecuted for offence under 120B and in this
regard he has placed reliance on the judgment of
a co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of
Sachin Narayan vs Income Tax Department
and Another (W.P.5299/2019 and connected
writ petitions). There is no second word
with regard to his argument that section
120B is an independent offence but, to
invoke this offence of conspiracy, as has
been argued by Sri Hashmath Pasha, the
NC: 2024:KHC:19557
allegations found in the charge sheet must
constitute an offence in connection with
which conspiracy is alleged. As discussed
above, the allegations found in the charge
sheet do not constitute an offence under
section 420 IPC and therefore offence under
section 120B cannot be invoked in the facts
and circumstances. Therefore the argument
of Sri Dhyan Chinnappa cannot be accepted.
14. From the foregoing discussion, I come
to conclusion that all these petitions deserve to
be allowed. The proceedings against the
petitioners in C.C.2939/2020 on the file of I
ACMM, Bengaluru, are quashed."
4. The position in law is not disputed by the
learned HCGP representing the State.
5. The said judgment rendered by the Co-
ordinate Bench is followed by number of orders passed
by the subsequent co-ordinate Bench of this Court
(Supra) and for the aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. The order dated 11.02.2020 passed by
the Court of I Additional Chief
NC: 2024:KHC:19557
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in
C.C.NO.2937/2020, stand quashed."
2. In the light of quashment of the proceedings
qua accused No.3 and for the reasons rendered therein,
subject petition deserves succeed.
3. For the aforesaid reasons, petition stands
allowed. The order dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Court
of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in
C.C.No.2937/2020, stand quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NC
CT:bms
