Karnataka High Court
Shivaraj S/O Chandrashekhar Solanki vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:844
CRL.P No. 102632 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. 102632 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVARAJ S/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR SOLANKI
AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. CLOTH SELLER,
R/AT. SHARANBASAVESHWAR NAGAR,
BETAGERI, GADAG-582102.
2. GIRISH S/O. PARASHURAM DALABANJAN
AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. CLOTH SELLER,
R/AT. NEAR KITTUR, CHENNAMMA CIRCLE,
GAJENDRAGAD, GADAG-582102.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BETAGERI POLICE STATION, GADAG,
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by B
DHARWAD BENDH, AT. DHARWAD.
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR ...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH
BK
MAHENDRAKUMAR COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.01.22
15:00:19 +0530
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS,
SEEKING TO, QUASH THE COGNIZANCE DATED 06.06.2023 AS
TAKEN AGAINST THEM I.E. THE ACCUSED NO.1 AND
2/PETITIONERS IN BETAGERI POLICE STATION IN CRIME
NO.29/2023 WHICH IS REGISTERED IN CC NO.438/2023 ON THE
FILE OF II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-II, AT GADAG FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 78(3) OF K.P. ACT.
THIS PETITION THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:844
CRL.P No. 102632 of 2024
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 on a
public road near Betageri Heltacampa, Near Sahasrarjun Circle, Gadag,
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:
"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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:844
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.
5. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
a) The petition is allowed;
b) The impugned proceedings in CC No.438/2023 pending
on the file of learned II Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC-II, Gadag, insofar it relates to the petitioners, is
hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
HR
Ct:vh
