(BY SRI. KINI NAGPRASAD SURESH, ADVOCATE) v. (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
SRI. PRADEEP, S/O. NAGAPPA SHETTY AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. TRADER, R/O. CAR STREET, HONNAVAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
SRI. NAGAPPA, S/O. GOVIND PATAGAR, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HODIKESHIROOR, HONNAVAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
SRI. SHRIPAD, S/O. VASUDEV JANNU, AGE. 81 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. CAR STREET, HONNAVAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
SRI. ANNAPPA, S/O. SUKRU HARIKANTRA, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. FISHERMAN, R/O. HOSAHITLA, MANKI, HONNAVAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
SRI. BASAVARAJ, S/O. KALLAPPA HUBBALLI AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, R/O. ROYALKERI, HONNAVAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
SRI. BASKAR, S/O. DATTA NAIK, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, R/O. MANKI, HONNAVAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA. K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2879 CRL.P No. 100695 of 2025
SRI. VINAYKUMAR, S/O. NAGESH SHETTY, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. TRADER, R/O. BAVANI NILAYA, ARAMANEHAKKALA ROAD, SHIRUR, BAINDURU, DIST. UDUPI.
SRI. KRISHNA, S/O. NARAYAN NAIK, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOTEL EMPLOYEE, R/O. HANDIGON, KUMTA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA. (BY SRI. KINI NAGPRASAD SURESH, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HONNAVAR POLICE STATION, R/BY STATE PROSECUTOR, HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA) …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN CC NO.1526/2024 BEFORE THE COURT OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNAVAR, IN FURTHERANCE OF FIR IN CR.NO.198/2024 BY HONNAVAR POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 8 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 80 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2879 CRL.P No. 100695 of 2025 ORAL ORDER
1. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioners, who have been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, have approached this Court seeking relief.
3. The prosecution alleges that, upon receiving credible information, a raid was conducted at a recreation club, where the petitioners were allegedly found playing ‘Andar Bahar’ by placing chits.
4. The offence punishable under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, is a non-cognizable offence. The raid was conducted on 29.08.2024, while the order under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. was obtained only on 30.08.2024. Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. expressly mandates that no investigation shall be conducted in relation to a non-cognizable offence without obtaining prior approval from a Magistrate. Since investigation commenced before obtaining the Magistrate’s order, the entire investigation, culminating in the taking of cognizance of the alleged offence, stands vitiated for non-compliance with Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
5. Furthermore, even on merits, the charge-sheet material does not establish that the petitioners were playing ‘Andar Bahar’ as a game of chance rather than a game of skill. In the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2879 CRL.P No. 100695 of 2025 absence of such essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Operative part
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned criminal proceedings in C.C. No.1526/2024, pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Honnavar, insofar as it relates to petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8, is hereby quashed.
7. Any pending applications do not survive consideration and are accordingly disposed of. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 155(2), 482; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Karnataka Police Act, 1963 — s. 80.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.