Karnataka High Court
Nagaraja R vs State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9122/2017
A/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9125/2017
IN CRL.P.NO.9122/2017
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJA.R
S/O RAMACHANDRA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
SAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
NO.3811, GROUND FLOOR
UMA LOKENDRA RAO MANSION
12TH CROSS, BSK 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
POLICE INSPECTOR
SAGAR TOWN POLICE STATION
SAGARA 577 401
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
REP. BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT
BUILDING, BENGALURU-01 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S. RACHAIAH, HCGP.)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.276/2017 IN CR.NO.408/2016
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE(JR.DN) AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT AGAINST THE
PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 78(3) OF
KARNATAKA POLICE ACT.
IN CRL.P.NO.9125/2017
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJA.R @ BADDI NAGA
S/O RAMACHANDRA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
SAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
NO.3811, GROUND FLOOR
UMA LOKENDRA RAO MANSION
12TH CROSS, BSK 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
POLICE INSPECTOR
SAGAR TOWN POLICE STATION
SAGARA 577 401
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
REPTD. BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-01 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S. RACHAIAH, HCGP)
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.385/2016 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA
DISTRICT AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In the above said two cases, the Police have registered two cases against the petitioner and another accused in Crime Nos.408/2016 and 117/2016 for the offences punishable under Ss.78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and also under S.420 of IPC. In both the cases, the facts are almost similar except the date and place. In Crl.P. No.9122/17, the allegations are that on 16.11.2016, after receiving credible information that some persons are playing 'matka' near Mahalakshmi Rice Mill Circle, in front of Rashmi Canteen in Sagar Town, the police rushed to the particular place and caught hold of accused No.1 and another person ran away from the spot. On enquiring with 4 accused No.1 by name Vinodh Raj @ Raja, he has disclosed that after getting the money from the public, in order to play gambling by name 'matka' they pay the said money to one Nagaraja @ Baddi Naga who is none other than the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as accused No.2 in the above said two cases. In the second case i.e., Crl.P. No.9125/2017, it is alleged that on 04.03.2016, the police received the credible information that in front of Ganesh Jewelry Shop, on Avinahalli Road in Sagar Town, some persons are playing 'makta' in the similar fashion. The police went there and caught hold of a person by name Gururaj who was indulged in playing and he disclosed the name of petitioner herein who is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.117/2016.
2. Therefore, looking to the above said facts and circumstances, it is accused No.1 who has disclosed the name of this petitioner that after accused No.1 playing 'matka' and getting money, he used to give the said money to the present petitioner. But there is absolutely no material in the FIR to show that whether the police 5 have enquired any other person or public at large to ascertain whether the said factum stated by accused No.1 is true or not. Even after filing of the charge-sheet, the police have not collected any material with regard to the accused No.1 paying money collected by playing 'matka' to accused No.2. In this connection, the police have recorded the statement of many witnesses. However, on careful perusal of the statement of witnesses including the police witnesses, it could be seen that no body have got any personal or special knowledge about accused No.1 making payment in favour of accused No.2 after playing 'makta'. Even on careful perusal of the entire statements of witnesses, the prosecution has relied upon the statement of the co-accused which is not corroborated by any material on record. Therefore, there is absolutely no offence committed either under S.78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act or under S.420 of IPC, in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned.
Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the proceedings in C.C. Nos.276/2017 and 6 385/2016 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Sagara, Shivamogga Dist. in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned are liable to be quashed and accordingly they are quashed.
The petitions are allowed in the above terms.
Sd/-
JUDGE sac*