Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying the Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C. No.156/2017 (Crime No.164/2016) pending on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hosapete, for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, to meet the ends of justice.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 08.11.2016, the P.S.I., Ballari Mariyammanahalli Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.164/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act and also under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and three others. It is stated by the complainant that after having the information that in the house of Nandihalli Krishanappa, some people, in order to cheat the public, were giving assurance that in the matka play they will give Rs.80/- for one rupee and they were involved in playing the said matka game, immediately the complainant secured two panchas and under the leadership of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kudligi, he, along with other staff members and two panchas named in the complaint, left the police station at 5.00 p.m., went to the said place and they stopped their jeep at some distance. The complainant and other staff went to the new house of Nandihalli Krishnappa and saw that Krishnappa (petitioner herein) and others were inviting the persons, who had come there, to play the matka game and were assuring them that they would give Rs.80/- for one rupee and were collecting money from the public for which they (the petitioner and other persons) were giving matka chits. The police also saw that some persons were involved in calling some other persons, through mobile phones, inviting them to play matka game, assuring them that they would give Rs.80/- for one rupee, and were giving matka numbers. The police having confirmed that the petitioner and other accused persons were cheating the public, all of a sudden, conducted a raid, caught hold of the persons playing matka and when they asked their names, they told that they were, 1) Nandihalli Krishnappa, mother Hanumanthamma, 2) H.Ravi, mother Huligemma, 3) Rafique, S/o of Durugappa, and 4) K.Hanumanthappa, S/o of K.Ramappa. It is also mentioned in the complaint that they seized from the petitioner an amount of Rs.20,612/-, six matka chits, two mobile phones of Samsung Company and two old matka chits. Sofar as others are concerned, whatever the amount, chits and other articles that were seized from them, are mentioned in the complaint in detail. On the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered firstly, for the offence under Section 78(3) of the Karntaka Police Act and so also under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioner has challenged the initiation of the proceedings on the grounds as mentioned in grounds Nos.8 to 15 of the said petition.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

5. Counsel for the petitioner made the submission that there is no prima facie case made out by the prosecution; the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed only for the offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act and the offence under Section 420 of IPC has been dropped. Counsel further made the submission that the police, in order to overcome the compliance of mandatory requirements of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., purposely registered the FIR even for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, but while submitting the charge-sheet, dropped the said offence. Alternatively, learned counsel made the submission that even if at that time, there is a material for the alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC and since it is a cognizable offence, the police ought to have followed the mandatory provisions under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C., which was also not done in this case. Therefore, in this connection, he drew the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2014)2 SCC 1 and submitted that whenever the police receive any information regarding commission of a cognizable offence, immediately, they have to reduce the same in their station diary. He submitted that in this case, no such material is placed by the prosecution. It is also his contention that looking to the materials, it is the prosecution case that they proceeded to the spot, caught hold the petitioner, seized the amount, matka chits, ball pen, cash and then conducted panchanama in the presence of the panch witnesses, and after going to the police station, they registered the FIR and therefore, by the time the FIR came to be registered, more than half of the investigation was completed. Hence, he submitted that looking to all these materials, initiation of the criminal proceedings are only for statistical purpose and they are with a mala fide intention; there is no prima facie case made out by the prosecution. Hence, the learned counsel sought for quashing the proceedings.