Karnataka High Court
Sri Sathish vs State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2022
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5827 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI SATHISH
S/O ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT KURUBARA PETE
HOSAKOTE - 562 114.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KRISHNAMOORTHY D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING ANENXURE
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MR.C.M.RAJU P.S.I.,
MAJOR
HOSAKOTE POLICE STATION
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 114.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
CR.NO.165/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
2
AND JMFC AT HOSAKOTE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AGAINST
THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.79 OF
KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, SEC.66(D) OF THE I.T ACT AND SEC.34
AND 420 OF THE IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crime No.165/2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 79 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 420 and 34 of the IPC, 1860, pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, Bengaluru Rural. Petitioner is accused No.4.
2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the case at hand are as follows:
The case of the prosecution is that, on 26.04.2021, at about 9.30 a.m., C.M.Raju, PSI - the complainant received a credible information that within the jurisdiction of Hosakote Police Station, three individuals were indulged in playing IPL cricket betting. They were also booking betting for future 3 matches about the winning and losing possibilities of various team and used an APP / Website by name JUNGLE BET.COM, to check the betting ratio and used mobile phones. They used WhatsApp to contact the customers, Google Pe, Phone Pe to transfer money to bank accounts and conduct gambling, involving money transaction to deceive general public. After which, FIR came to be registered for the offences as afore-
quoted.
3. Heard Sri.Krishnamoorthy D., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in the petition stands covered by an order passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in CRL.P.NO.2929/2020 AND CONNECTED MATTERS D.D. ON 10.01.2022, wherein, it has held that betting does not come within the ambit of the definition of 'gaming' as found in Karnataka Police Act. 4
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. This Court in Crl.P.No.2929/2020 disposed on 10.01.2022, has held as follows:
"8. I have cons idered the argu ments. Firstly, one poin t of argu men t regarding regis tr ation of an FIR is to be deal t with. All the counsel f or the petitioners have f ussed over th is aspec t. It is true th at the second respondent made a repor t to the Cubbon Park police f or regis tration of FIR on the basis of inf ormation that he gathered wh il e in terrogating a player in connectio n with Crime No. 124/2019. It appe ars that the inf ormation the second respondent g athered is in the f orm of conf ession of an accused and this is the reason f or tak ing s trong objection f or registration of FIR in Crime No. 197/2019 wh ich h as given rise to ch arge shee t in the case on h and. Of course there is subs tance in the argu ment th at the conf ession state men t of an accused g iven bef ore the police cannot be ref erred to in vie w of bar con tained in section 25 of the Indian Ev idence Act. But, the s aid bar is to the extent of proving the conf ession ag ainst the accused who made it, there is no prohib ition as such to make use of any inf ormation that a police off icer co mes to kno w f or the f irst time regarding a crime wh ich migh t have taken pl ace in the p as t and not de tec ted till then, wh ile in terrogating an accused in connection with another case of crime. Suppos ing th at an accused himself goes to police station and gives inf ormation about the of f ence co mmitted by him, the pol ice in such a circu ms tance can very well 5 regis ter an F IR and th is 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 , wh y a state men t given by a co- accused regarding another cr ime c annot be made use of f or registr ation of FIR. In f act many incidents of thef t, robbery or daco ity co me to light only during such in terrog ations. It may be s tated f urther th at such state ment can be made use of only f or the limited purpose of regis tr ation of FIR and it canno t be used f or proving it agains t an accused. Reg istr atio n of FIR is no t the end in itself and it is not a substan tive p iece of evidence also. Mere regis tratio n of FIR in th is manner does not lead to conv icting an accused, investig ator has to collect independent evidence and f urther the prosecution must be able to prove its case beyond reasonab le doubt. T heref ore the entire argu men t th at state men t of a co-accused dur ing in terrogation in connection with so me other crime cannot f orm bas is f or regis tration of FIR is to tally unf ounded.
9. Regarding the argu ment of Sri Hash math Pash a that state ment recorded by respondent No.2 during investig ation in Crime No. 124/2019 has not been produced, it is to be s tated that production of such a s tate men t is not necess ary. FIR is to be regis tered b ased on the inf ormation rel ating to co mmiss ion of a cogn izable off ence. According to respondent No.2 he collected th at inf ormation dur ing in terrogation in Crime No. 124/2019. It was a conf ession al state men t of an accused and it f orms part of the record in Crime No. 124/2019. While a copy of that state men t could have been produced along with report made by respondent No.2 to the Cubbon Park police, its non-production has leas t eff ect f or, even if it is produced, it cannot be proved ag ainst the accused in the presen t case. T he report of respondent No.2 sho ws inf or mation th at he 6 collected reg ard ing match f ixing f or the KPL matches of the se ason 2019 and this much of inf ormation can certainly be bas is f or regis tr ation of FIR if really an off ence has been co mmitted. T heref ore this argu men t is also not acceptable.
10. Ho wever, the other co mmon poin t urged by all the counsel is wor th acceptance. According to the prosecu tion matc h f ixing amounts to che ating and theref ore the off ence under section 420 IPC h as been invoked in the charge sheet. For invoking off ence under section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients to be present are deception, d ishonest induce ment 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 Sr i Dhyan Chinnapp a that the cricke t lovers go to watc h the match by buying tickets and thereby they are induced to par t with their property, i.e., their money. Of course money is a property, but his argu men t that they are induced to buy ticke ts cannot be accepted. T hey may have a f eeling th at they are going to witness a f air game being played, but, they buy the tickets voluntar ily. So, ques tion of induce ment to buy ticke t c an be ruled out.
11. It is true th at if a player indulges in match f ixing, a general f eeling will ar ise th at he h as cheated the lovers of the game. But, this general f eeling does not give r ise to an off ence. T he matc h f ixing may indicate dishonesty, indiscipline and mental corruption of a pl ayer and f or this purpose the BCC I is the authority to in itiate disciplin ary ac tion. If the bye-laws of the BCCI provide f or in itiation of disciplin ary action against a player, such an ac tion is per mitted bu t, regis tr ation of an FIR on the ground that a crime punishable under section 420 IPC has been co mmitted, is not per mitted. Even if the entire charge sheet aver ments are taken to be true on their f ace value, they do no t cons titu te an of f ence.7
12. One of the petitioners is a bookie s aid to have involved in betting. Sri Has h math P ash a h as relied upon a judg ment of the Supre me Cour t in Board of Control for Cricket vs Cricket Association of Bihar and Others [2016 (8) SCC 535] where it is observed th at betting is to be legal ized. It wa s argued by the responden t th at betting amounts to gaming wh ich is an off ence under the K arn atak a Police Act. If section 2(7) of Karn atak a Police Act is seen, its expl anation very clearly s ays that game of chance does not include any athletic game or sport. Cricket is a sport and theref ore even if betting takes place, it cannot be brought with in the amb it of def inition of 'gaming' f ound in K arn atak a Police Act.
13. Sri Dhyan Chinn app a argued that section 120B of IPC is an independent off ence and theref ore notwiths tanding the f act th at ingredien ts f or sec tion 420 IPC can be said to be not there f or argu ment sake, still the accused c an be prosecuted f or off ence under 120B and in th is reg ard he has placed reliance on the judg ment of a co-ordin ate bench of th is cour t in the case of Sachin Narayan vs Income Tax Department and Another (W.P.5299/2019 and connected writ petitions). T here is no second word with reg ard to his argu ment th at section 120B is an independent off ence bu t, to in voke this off ence of conspir acy, as has been argued by Sri H ash math Pash a, the allegations f ound in the charge sheet must constitu te an off ence in connection with wh ich conspir acy is alleged. As discussed above, the allegations f ound in the charge sheet do not cons titu te an offence under section 420 IPC and theref ore off ence under section 120B c annot be invoked in the f acts and circu ms tances. T heref ore the argu ment of Sri Dhyan Ch innapp a c annot be accepted.8
14. Fro m the f orego ing discussion, I co me to conclus ion th at all these pe titio ns deserve to be allo wed. T he proceed ings agains t the petitioners in C.C.2939/2020 on the f ile of I ACMM, Beng aluru, are quashed."
In light of the afore-extracted order, the issue in the case at hand covers on all its fours. Therefore, I deem it appropriate obliterate the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in Crime No.165/2021, pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosakote, Bengaluru Rural, stand quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nvj CT:MJ