Karnataka High Court
Dattu S/O Ramachandrasa Solanke vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:842
CRL.P No. 102454 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102454 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. DATTU S/O. RAMACHANDRASA SOLANKE
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. GARAGE,
R/AT. ARVINDANAGAR JANATA COLONY,
KARWAR ROAD, OLD HUBBLALI,
HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020.
2. VEERESH S/O. ASHOKSA BASAVA
AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/AT. KAMARIPETH, 4TH CROSS,
NEAR MAHALAXMI TEMPLE,
OLD HUBBALLI, DHARWAD-580020.
3. AMRUTH S/O. ASHOK DALABANJAN
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. SCREEN PAINTING WORK,
R/AT. ARVINDANAGAR, JEHESHWAR SCHOOL,
NEAR CHILLI POUNDING MILL, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020.
Digitally signed by B
4. DEEPAK S/O. SWAMISA MEHERWADE
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. WORKER AT CLOTH SHOP,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/AT. CHANNAPETH, BEHIND SSK HALL,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH OLD HUBBLLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580 020.
Date: 2025.01.21
07:28:45 +0530 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
OLD HUBBALLI POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI,
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:842
CRL.P No. 102454 of 2024
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE COGNIZANCE DATED 13.12.2023 AS
TAKEN AGAINST HIM I.E. THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4/PETITIONERS
IN OLD HUBBALLI POLICE STATION CRIME NO.241/2023
REGISTERED AS CC NO.15076/2023 CURRENTLY PENDING ON
THE FILES OF 4TH ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, AT
HUBBALLI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 78(3) OF K.P. ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offence
punishable under Sections 78 (3) of the Karnataka Police Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on receiving credible
information that, some persons were involved in cricket betting in front of
Aravind Nagar, Old Hubli, the complainant after seeking permission from
the learned Magistrate under Section 155 of Cr.P.C., conducted a raid
and it was disclosed that the petitioners were involved in a betting on the
cricket match.
3. The question as to whether the betting on the cricket match
comes under the definition of "gaming" under Section 2(7) of the
Karnataka Police Act was examined by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Crl.P.No.4090/2023 disposed on 16.8.2023, wherein, at paras 7
and 8 it has ruled as follows:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:842
"7. The coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No.2929/2021 at
para-12 has held as follows:
"12. One of the petitioners is 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 the 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."
8. Admittedly, the accused No.4 is alleged to have been found
betting on the cricket match, and the coordinate Bench of this
Court has held that 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. Hence, in the absence of
essential elements so as to constitute the commission of offence
punishable under Section 78(ii) of the Karnataka Police Act, the
registration of FIR for the aforesaid offence stands vitiated.
Hence, the continuation of criminal investigation will be an abuse
of process of law."
4. In the light of the above, even accepting that the petitioners
were involved in betting on the cricket match, the same does not come
under the definition of "gaming" as defined under Section 2(7) of the
Karnataka Police Act, and therefore, the continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners will be an abuse of process of the
law and without jurisdiction.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:842
5. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
a) The petition is allowed;
b) The impugned proceedings in CC No.15076/2023
pending on the file of learned 4th Additional Civil Judge
and JMFC, Hubballi, insofar it relates to the petitioners,
is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
HR
Ct:vh
