Karnataka High Court
Sri Venu vs State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18383
CRL.P No. 7493 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7493 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. VENU,
S/O SRIRAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT KADIRANNAGARIPALLI VILLAGE,
BAGEPALLI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA -561 207.
2. SRI. MANJUNATHA,
S/O NARASIMHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT TEEMAKALAPALLI VILLAGE,
BAGEPALLI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA -561 207.
3. SRI. VISHWANATHA,
S/O CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY,
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RAGHAVENDRA R/AT 16TH WARD,
Location: HIGH BAGEPALLI TOWN, BAGEPALLI TALUK,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 207.
4. SRI. NARESH,
R/AT 23RD WARD,
S/O NARASIMHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
BAGEPALLI TALUK, BAGEPALLI TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 207.
5. SRI. VINOD KUMAR,
S/O K. SEENAPPA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18383
CRL.P No. 7493 of 2025
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT 12TH WARD
BAGEPALLI TOWN,
BAGEPALLI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 207.
6. SRI. RAGHU,
S/O LATE SRINIVASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT PATHABAGEPALLI VILLAGE,
BAGEPALLI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 207.
7. SRI. CHETHAN,
S/O ADINARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT 23RD WARD
BAGEPALLI TOWN,
BAGEPALLI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 207.
8. SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY,
S/O NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT 3RD WARD,
BAGEPALLI TOWN, BAGEPALLI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 207.
9. SRI. VENKATESH,
S/O SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT 3RD WARD,
BAGEPALLI TOWN, BAGEPALLI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 207.
10. MR. ANJINAPPA T.L.
S/O LAKSHMANA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT TURIKESHAVALLI,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18383
CRL.P No. 7493 of 2025
CHAKAVELU POST, BAGEPALLI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA- 563 124
WORKING AS HC-173,
TRAFFIC POLICE STATION,
CHIKKABALLAPURA 563 207.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJESHA SHETTIGARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BAGEPALLI P.S CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 563 207 REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISHA, HCGP)
CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.172/2025 REGISTERED
BY THE BAGEPALLI POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DVN.) AND JMFC, BAGEPALLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA
AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NO.1 TO 10) FOR
OFFENCE P/U/S 87 OF THE K.P. (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2021 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:18383
CRL.P No. 7493 of 2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs.
"To quash the FIR in Crime No.172/2025
registered by the Bagepalli police pending on the
file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Div) & JMFC,
Bagepalli, Chikkaballapura as against the
petitioners (Accused No.1 to 10) for offence
punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka
Police (Amendment) Act, 2021 vide ANNEXURE-A
and pass such other order or direction that deems
fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the
interest of justice and equity."
2. By way of the above petition, the petitioner is challenging
the order dated 17.05.2025 passed in Cr.No.172/2025 by
the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Div) & JMFC, Bagepalli,
Chikkaballapura, permitting the jurisdictional police, i.e.
the Bhagyapalli Police to investigate the matter.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the said order is cryptic, not detailed and has not
considered all the aspects and therefore, the permission
to investigate is required to be quashed, so also the
proceedings are required to be quashed.
4. The impugned order reads as under:
"SHO Sri.Shaik Sanaulla C.H.C-56 Bagepalli
police station is present before me in my Chamber
NC: 2025:KHC:18383
at 3:30 P.M on 17/05/2025. to this Court along
with a requisition to permit the police officer to
investigate the offence punishable under Section 87
of Karntaka Police Act.
This Court has perused the requisition
submitted by the Sri.Shaik Sanaulla C.H.C-56
Bagepalli police station
The gist of the allegation is that, the
complainant i.e. Sri P.S.I Sunil Kumar Bagepalli
police station filed complaint before the S,H.O of
Bagepalli Police Station stating that on 16/05/2025
at 09.30 P.M he received credible information that
some persons were illegally gambling near the
banks Thimakalpalli Village of on the basis of the
complaint, the S.H.O has the complainant along
with a requisition seeking permission investigate
into the matter.
On perusal of the requisition filed and
submissions made by the C.H.C 56 of Bagepalli
Police Station it discloses the commission of the
offences punishable under Section 87 KP Act which
is non-cognizable in nature and there are prima-
facie materials to investigate the said offence.
The person who has given information to
SHO of Bagepalli police station has not been
referred to me. However I can't compel to do so as
there is a bar U/s 131 of Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyama, 2023.
Signature of C.H.C-56 Bagepalli police station
is obtained in the order sheet.
Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 174(2) of BNSS, the
police is hereby permitted to investigate the alleged
offence.
NC: 2025:KHC:18383
The SHO of Bagepalli police station shall investigate
the matter and submit the report.
5. In the petition what has been produced is the last line of
the aforesaid order. A perusal of the order passed by the
Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagepalli as above would indicate
that he has applied his mind to the matter. Considered
the requisition, the allegations made therein and the
nature of offence, which has been alleged against the
petitioner and thereafter, permitted the Bagepalli Police
to investigate the matter. All the aspects, which are
required to be considered by the Civil Judge and JMFC,
have been considered in the proper perspective and the
same answers, the requirement of the judgment in the
case of Keval M. Lohith Vs. State of Karnataka in
Crl.P.No.4969/2020 dated 10.01.2025.
6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the
above petition. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
BH
