Karnataka High Court
Sri Manoj Kumar @ Monty vs State Of Karnataka on 7 September, 2022
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
CRL.P No. 6386 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6386 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MANOJ KUMAR @ MONTY,
S/O BALVINDER PAL,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT 1844/B/6, VISHNU NAGAR,
JAGADHRI, YAMUNA NAGAR,
HARIYANA - 135 002.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY BHARATHI NAGAR POLICE (CCB SE),
BENGALURU - 560 005.
REPRESENTED BY ITS HCGP/SPP,
Digitally signed
by PADMAVATHI
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BK BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SRI. S.M.NAGARAJU,
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
CCB, ORGANIZED CRIME PREVENTION WING,
N.T. PETE,
BENGALURU - 560 053.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP)
-2-
CRL.P No. 6386 of 2022
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A.
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2020 PASSED IN
C.C.NO.2937/2020 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU THEREBY TAKING
COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER WHO IS ACCUSED
NO.3, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.120(B), 420 R/W SEC.34 OF
IPC AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE A AND B
AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.2937/2020 arising out of Crime No.124/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. Heard Sri Amar Corea, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in -3- CRL.P No. 6386 of 2022 Crl.P.No.2929/2020 and connected cases , disposed of on 10.01.2022, wherein this Court has held as follows:
"8. I have considered the argument s. Firstly, one point of argument regarding registrati on of an FIR is to be dealt with. All the counsel for the petitioners have fussed over this aspect. It is true that the second respondent made a report to the Cubbon Park police for registration of FIR on the basi s of information that he gathered while interrogat ing a player in connection with Crime No. 124/2019. It appears that the information the second respondent gat hered is in the form of confession of an ac cused and this is the reason for t aking strong objection for registration of F IR in Crime No. 197/2019 which has given rise to charge sheet in the case on hand. Of course there is substance in the argument that the confession statement of an a ccused given before the police cannot be referred to in view of bar contained in section 25 of the -4- CRL.P No. 6386 of 2022 Indian Evidence Act . But, the said bar is to the extent of proving the confession against the accused who made it, there is no prohibition as such to make use of any information that a police officer comes to know for the first time regarding a crime which might have taken place in t he past and not detected till then, while interrogating an accused in connection with another case of crime. Supposing that an accused himself goes to police station and gives information about the offence commi tted by him, the police in such a cir cum stance can very well register an FIR and this 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 ment given by a co- accused regardi ng another crime cannot be made use of for registration of FIR. In fact man y incidents of theft, robbery or dacoity come to li ght only during such interrogations. It may be stat ed further -5- CRL.P No. 6386 of 2022 that such statement can be made use of only for the limited purpose of registration of FIR and it cannot be used for proving it against an accused. Registration of FIR is not the end in itself and it is not a subst antive piece of evidence also. Mere registration of FIR in this manner does not lead to convicting an accused, investigator has to collect independent evidence and further the prosecution must be able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore the entire argument that statement of a co -accused during interrogation in connection with some other crime cannot form basis for registration of FIR is totally unf ounded.
9. Regarding the argument of Sri Hashmath Pasha that statement recorded by respondent No.2 during investigation in Crime No. 124/2019 has not been produced, it is to be stated that production of such a state ment is not necessary. FIR is to be registered based -6- CRL.P No. 6386 of 2022 on the information relating to commission of a cognizable offence. According to respondent No.2 he collected that information during interrogation in Crime No. 124/2019. It was a confessional statement of an accused and it forms part of the record in Crime No. 124/2019. While a copy of that st atement could have been produced along with report made by respondent No.2 to the Cubbon Park police, it s non- production has least effect for, even if it is produced, it cannot be proved against the accused in the present case. The report of respondent No.2 shows information that he collected regarding match fixing for the KPL matches of the season 2019 and this much of information can certainly be basi s for registration of FIR if really an offence has been committed. Therefore this argument is al so not acceptable.
10. However, the other com mon point urged by all the counsel is -7- CRL.P No. 6386 of 2022 worth acceptance. According to the prosecution m atch f ixing am ounts 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 part of a valuable security. It was argued by Sri Dhyan Chinnappa that the cricket lovers go to watch the m atch by buying tickets and thereby they are induced to part with their property, i.e., their money. Of course m oney is a pr operty, but his argum ent that they are in duced 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 voluntaril y. So, question of inducement to buy ticket can be ruled out.-8- CRL.P No. 6386 of 2022
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 dishonest y, 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 acti on against a pl ayer, such an action is permitted but, registration of an FIR on the ground that a crime punishable under section 420 IPC has been committed, i s not permitted. Even if the entire charge sheet averments are taken to be true on their face value, they do not constitut e an offence.
12. One of the peti tioners is a bookie said to have involved in betting. Sri Hashmath Pasha has relied upon a judgment of the Suprem e Court in Board of Control for -9- CRL.P No. 6386 of 2022 Cricket vs Cricket Association of Bihar and O thers [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 Ac t is seen, its exp lanation very clearly says that game of chance does not include any athl etic 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 Poli ce Act.
13. Sri Dhyan Chinnappa argued that section 120B of IPC is an independent offence and therefore notwithstanding the fact that ingredients for section 420 IPC can be said to be not there for argument sake, still the accused can be prosecuted for offence under 120B and in this regard he has placed reliance on the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this
- 10 -CRL.P No. 6386 of 2022
court in the case of Sachin Narayan vs Incom e Tax D epartment and Another (W.P.5299/2019 and connected writ petitions). There is no second word with regard to his argument that section 120B is an independent offence but, to invoke this offence of conspiracy, as has been argued by Sri Hashmath Pasha, the all egati ons found in the charge sheet must constitute an offence in connection with which conspiracy is alleged. As discussed above, the allegations found in the charge sheet do not constitute an offence under section 420 IPC and therefore offence under section 120B cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances. Therefore the argument of Sri Dhyan Chinnappa cannot be accepted.
14. From the foregoing di scussion, I come to conclusion that all these petitions deserve to be allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners in
- 11 -CRL.P No. 6386 of 2022
C.C.2939/2020 on the file of I ACMM, Bengaluru, are quashed."
4. The position in law is not disputed by the learned HCGP representing the State.
5. The said judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench is followed by number of orders passed by the subsequent co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Supra) and for the aforementioned, the following:
ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. The order dated 11.02.2020 passed by the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.NO.2937/2020, stand quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KA