Karnataka High Court
Sri. Vasantha Poojary @ Kiran Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2022
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6969 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SRI. VASANTHA POOJARY
@ KIRAN KUMAR
S/O NARAYANA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.S6
DRUVA AROHAR APARTMENT
3RD CROSS, GIDDAPPA BLOCK
R.T. NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 032
... PETITIONER
[BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADV. FOR
SRI. RAHUL RAI K., ADV.]
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R.T. NAGARA POLICE STATION
REP. BY IT STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001
... RESPONDENT
[BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP]
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
2
PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.277/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF LEARNED 32 A.C.M.M., NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU CITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri. Suyog Herele E., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Abhijith the learned HCGP appearing for State.
2. The petitioner calls in question the proceedings in Crime No.277/2020 registered for offences punishable under Section 78 (A)(vi) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that against the other accused in C.C.No.2939/2020, the Court has quashed the proceedings in two different petitions; one in Crl.P.No.2929/2020 and connected cases disposed on 10.01.2022 and the other in Crl.P.No.567/2022 by its 3 order dated 31.01.2022 by following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET VS CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR AND OTHERS1. This Court by order dated 31.01.2022 passed in Crl.P.No.567/2022, has held as follows:
"3. The case of the prosecution is that one Prakasha, the Police Officer, City Crime Branch (Special investigating), Bengaluru registered a complaint on 06.11.2019 alleging that while interrogating the cricket players, coaches, and owners of franchises in connection with Crime No.124/2019 came to know about match fixing of the KPL cricket matches held between 15th and 31st August of the year 2019 and gave a report about it to the Cubbon Park Police Station. This resulted in the registering of 1 (2016) 8 SCC 535 4 the FIR against the petitioner for the above said offences. After investigating the matter, the police have filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused persons, and the same is challenged by the petitioner before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued on the point that the co-accused persons had filed a criminal petition before this Court, which came to be allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against accused Nos.1 to 4 were quashed by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.2929/2020 and connected matters dated 10.01.2022. He further contended that the allegations against this petitioner and accused No.2 are one and the same and that he has 5 been granted relief of quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against him. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court categorically held that the match fixing has to be considered by only BCCI, who has the authority to initiate disciplinary action, but in this case, the Cricket Board has not taken any action against the accused persons. Therefore, an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC does not attract, considering all the aspects, the Co- Ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings in the above said petitions. He further contended that the allegation against this petitioner in the case is that he has instructed accused No.1-Gautam, the Captain and Wicket Keeper, to play slowly. In fact, he has played a game and won the match against 6 the Shivamogga Lions team by super over, and he has scored 57 runs in 52 balls and the game was over by super over. In another match with Mysore Warriors, where accused No.1 scored 92 runs in 50 balls and remained not out in the match. Ultimately, the opposite team won the match by just one run. If at all, there was any conspiracy instructed by this petitioner to play slowly, the runs could have been very less than the balls, but he has scored well and won the matches. Such being the case, a false case has been registered against the petitioner only to harass the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
7
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader objected to the criminal petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.5 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perusing the records, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the above said petitions dated 10.01.2022 has held at paragraphs-10, 11 and 12 which read as under:
"10. However, the other common point urged by all the counsel is worth acceptance. According to the prosecution match fixing amounts to cheating and therefore the offence under section 420 IPC has been invoked in the charge sheet. For invoking offence under section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients to be present are deception, dishonest inducement of a person to deliver any property or to alter or destroy the whole or any 8 part of a valuable security. It was argued by Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa that the cricket lovers go to watch the match by buying tickets and thereby they are induced to part with their property i.e. their money. Of course money is a property, but his argument that they are induced to buy tickets cannot be accepted. They may have a feeling that they are going to witness a fair game being played, but, they buy the tickets voluntarily. So, question of inducement to buy ticket can be ruled out.
11. It is true that if a player indulges in match fixing, a general feeling will arise that he has cheated the lovers of the game. But, this general feeling does not give rise to an offence. The match fixing may indicate dishonesty, indiscipline and mental corruption of a player and for this purpose the BCCI is the authority to initiate disciplinary action. If the bye-laws of the BCCI provide for initiation of disciplinary action against a player, such an action is permitted but, registration of an FIR on the ground that a crime punishable under section 420 IPC has been committed, is not permitted. Even if the entire charge sheet averments are taken to be true on their face value, they do not constitute an offence.
12. One of the petitioners is a bookie said to have involved in betting. Sri. Hashmath Pasha 9 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 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."
7. Finally, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court has considered the fact that the allegations found in the charge sheet do not constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC and, therefore, an offence under Section 120B cannot be invoked against the accused persons. One of the accused persons is an owner, and this petitioner is also the owner of the team, namely Bellary Tuskers. In view of the judgment already 10 delivered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the allegation against this petitioner is also one and the same. Therefore, this petitioner is also entitled to the same relief. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made out the case for quashing the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is allowed.
All further proceedings in C.C.No.2939/2020 arising out of the Crime No.197/2019 registered by Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan and Magistrate, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed."11
4. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET (supra) and the order of this Court as extracted above, the following:
ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings in Crime No.277/2020 on the file of the XXXII A.C.M.M., Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru City, against the petitioner stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KG