Karnataka High Court
Mr. Arvind Reddy vs State By on 31 January, 2022
Author: K. Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.567 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
MR. ARVIND REDDY,
S/O H.VENKATESH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2, 2ND FLOOR, SLV PLAZA,
ARVIND AVENUE, KUNDALHALLI GATE,
BENGALURU - 560 037.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K.N.SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY
CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION,
KASTURBA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2939/2020
2
PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1ST A.C.M.M. FOR ALLEGED
OFFENCE P/U/S 34,120B AND 420 OF IPC AND THE
COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CR.NO.197/2019 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A, B AND C.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.5 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet filed against the petitioner in C.C.No.2939/2020 arising out of Crime No.197/2019 registered by Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan and Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 34, 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State and perused the records. 3
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 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 4 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 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 5 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 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.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader objected to the criminal petition.
6
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 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 7 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 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 8 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 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:
9
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.
Sd/-
JUDGE KTY