Karnataka High Court
Ganapati Ital vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 June, 2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100773/2021
BETWEEN
GANAPATI ITAL
AGE. 45 YEARS , OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O.HA BBUWADA , TQ. KARWAR.
DIST. KARWAR, PI N COD E. 581 301
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S .V.YAJI , ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP.BY POLICE IN SPECT OR
KARWAR TOWN POLICE STATI ON KARWAR
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUT OR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
DHARWAD-580 011
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE
REGISTRATION OF CRIME NO.24/ 2021 DATED 27/ 01/ 2021
REGISTERED BY THE STATION HOUS E OFFICER KARWA R TOWN
POLI CE STATION , KARWAR AGAINST THE PETITIONER ARRAYED
AS ACCUSED NO.2 FOR HAVING COMMITTED THE OFFENCE U/S
78( 3) OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO
THE PETITION. CONSEQUENTLY, F URTHER PROCEED INGS IF
ANY PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE CRIME MAY KINDLY BE
-2-
QUASHED IN RES PECT OF THE PET ITIONER WHO IS ARRAYED
AS ACCUSED NO.2.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, T HE COURT MADE THE F OLLOWING:
ORDER
Though the petition is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is take up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner/accused No.2 is before this Court seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings registered in Crime No.24/2021 of Karwar Town Police Station on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Kumari.Ratna Kuri, PSI of Karwar Rural Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act (for short, 'K.P. Act').
3. Brief facts of the case are that the informant lodged the first information with the Station House Officer, Karwar Town Police Station against accused -3- No.1 and 2 stating that she had received credible information regarding playing of matka in the city of Karawar and on the basis of the said information she along with panchas and staff held a raid on the place near Panshop, Pakkusali Upahara Darshini, on the public road where one person was collecting matka chits and was playing matka. The matka chits were seized from his custody along with cash of Rs.20,917/-. On enquiry, the person who is arrayed as accused No.1 stated the name of accused No.2 i.e. the petitioner herein, as the person who was collecting the matka chits and the cash. Therefore, it is stated that accused No.1 was playing matka in the public place and accused No.2 was collecting the matka chits and the amount. Thereby both the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act. On the basis of the first information, -4- Crime No.24/2021 was registered by Karwar Town Police.
4. The petitioner/accused No.2 has approached this Court seeking to quash Crime No.24/2021 registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of K.P. Act.
5. Heard the learned counsel, Sri.S.V.Yaji for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri.Praveen K Uppar for the respondent- State.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the first information lodged by PSI, accused No.1 was playing matka on the public road. Admittedly, accused No.2 was not present at the spot. Under such circumstances, Section 78(3) of K.P. Act could not have been invoked.
-5-
7. Learned counsel also submitted that even as per the first information there was specific direction by the higher officers of the informant to hold raid and to register the criminal complaints. Only to satisfy the higher officer the informant lodged false information without any basis.
8. Thirdly, he would submit that except the first information and the further statement of the informant there is absolutely no other independent evidence to prove the commission of the offence by the accused. Under such circumstances, no offence is made out and therefore the criminal proceeding is to be quashed in the interest of justice.
9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 78 in Chapter VII of K.P. Act -6- deals with prevention of gaming. As per Section 78(1)(c) and (d) refers to care or management or assisting in conducting such game or advancing or furnishing money for the purpose of gaming is also an offence. Taking clue from this provision, Section 78(3) refers to such game being played on the public street or thoroughfare or in any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access, shall also amount to an offence.
10. Learned High Court Government Pleader further submitted that even though there was direction by the higher officers, the same cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings by forming an opinion that a false complaint is came to be registered. When the responsible officer like PSI of a police station lodges the first information and also gives a statement against the petitioner and other accused, the same cannot be ignored without any -7- basis. Sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence is to be looked at by the trial Court for the purpose of convicting the accused. When prima facie the offence is made out on the basis of the first information and the further statement of the informant which is also supported by the statements of the other police officers who were present at the scene of occurrence, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition as devoid of merits.
11. Perused the materials on record. In view of the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties, the following point would arise for my consideration:
"Whether the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner/accused No.2 is liable to be quashed?"
12. My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following:
-8-
REASONS
13. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 78(3) of K.P. Act specifically refers to the persons who were found gaming on the objects specified in Sub-section (1) in any public street or thoroughfare or in any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access. But this Sub-section (3) specifically refers to Sub- section (1) of Section 78 of K.P. Act. Section 78 (1)(c) and (d) as rightly contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader refer to a person who has the care or management or in any manner assists in conducting the business of, any such building, room or tent, enclosure, etc., which is used for the purpose of gaming and the advances or furnishes money for the purpose of such gaming, is liable for such offence. Under such circumstances, the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused -9- No.2 who was not at the scene of occurrence and even according to the first informant accused No.2 was collecting the matka chits and the money cannot be held responsible, is without any basis. Such contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the wordings in Section 78(1)(c) and (d) and Section 78(3) of K.P. Act. When there is specific reference to Sub-section (1) in Sub-section (3) of Section 78 of K.P. Act, we cannot bifurcate the sub-sections from one another and read it independently to hold technically that the persons who are found gaming on the public street or thoroughfare, etc. only can be held responsible and the person who collects the matka chits and the cash cannot be held liable under Sub-section (3) of Section 78 of K.P. Act.
14. The next contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even as per the first
- 10 -
information she was directed by her higher officers to hold raids and to register the case against the matka players, cannot be a ground to reject the first information outrightly by forming an opinion that the informant has filed a false complaint at the instance of the higher officers. No such opinion could be formed at this stage to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The Court is required to find out whether prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused or not. The first information and the further statement given by the first informant specifically refer to the role played by the present petitioner in commission of the offence. The same cannot be ignored to quash the criminal proceedings registered against him. Sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence to hold the accused guilty is altogether a different aspect of the matter which is to be considered by the trial Court while assessing the
- 11 -
evidence placed before it for the purpose of convicting or acquitting the accused. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, I answer the above point in negative.
In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Registry is directed to forward copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith, for information.
Sd/-
JUDGE sh