Disposed

Mahmeraj S/O Hasankhan Pathan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2024CRL.P/102059/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused Nos.1 to 3 challenged cognizance of a Kasabapeth PS crime registered under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act for cricket betting. Following earlier co-ordinate Bench decisions holding betting on cricket falls outside the definition of gaming, the Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.32/2024 quashed.

Mahmeraj S/O Hasankhan Pathan Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11041 CRL.P No. 102059 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102059 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MAHMERAJ S/O. HASANKHAN PATHAN, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/AT: PACIFIC APARTMENT, ARIHANT NAGAR, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI – 580023.

¶10

NIKET ALIAS NIKHIL S/O. SHANKAR DEVI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: PAINTER, R/AT: CHALAWADI ONI, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI - 580023.

¶11

RAVI S/O. NINGUSA HABIB, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT: PRASHANT NAGAR, BEHIND GANAPATI TEMPLE, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD – 580020.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KASABAPETH POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD. (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11041 CRL.P No. 102059 of 2024

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE COGNIZANCE DATED 25.04.2024 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3/PETITIONERS IN KASABAPETH PS CRIME NO.32 OF 2024 WHICH IS REGISTERED IN C.C.NO.1424/2024 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-III, AT: HUBBALLI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 78(3) OF K.P.ACT.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 have challenged the proceedings initiated against them on the basis of the complaint dated 07.04.2024, which reads as under:

¶25

�� ! � � � "#$%�� $��&��'�(�)�� ' � * � + � �,��-�+ � �.��-��/0��01��0�1�+�- � �2�'�3� �!��'��4-( � �5� � �� 6�-7�� '�(�)� 8��6' � ��9�' � ��7�: � ' � �; � <7�'�=��>��'�(?@��'�� A�* � B��8*�+�-2 � �� C� ��-7 �� !�-( � ��D� � � �'�+ �� C� ��+� � � � -� � � �!��.B-( � ��EF� � G�� H;�� ' � �I��+ � �4-( � �5�� 6��-7��'�(�� F4*�B7 � �0�00�7�-��7 � � � ��J-�5�K�� L;��F4+ � ��'�HM<� **�** + **�** �4-( **�** �".7 **�** ��>'�+ � �<-2 � � � -� � �N�.' �� .��-��/�

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11041 CRL.P No. 102059 of 2024

¶27

0��01��0�1�+�-* � �� -( � �F4+ � ' � >� � C�� +�� O�&-��P�' � 2 � 4�7 � M+�2 � ��&��P�Q6� � ��2�-��7�: � � �� ' � ��R��S;��Q6� � ��- � �** ' � �; � Q6� � �� G-7�� T� � F4+ � ' � "7U � IA2 � '�(�=F�"-.* � B��+�E� ��*�V-( � '�+ � ' � �; � ��>-/�WXDY�� T��G � V2�� ' � �-.� � �� 6' � ��&7 � :�%>��Z��-F�[��

¶28

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

¶29

Crl.P.No.4090/2023, disposed off on 16.08.2023 has held as under:

¶30

“7. The coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. P. No.2929/2021 at para-12 has held as follows:

¶31

“12. One of the petitioners is 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 the 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 betting takes place, it cannot be brought within the ambit of definition of ‘gaming’ found in Karnataka Police Act”.

¶32

Admittedly, the accused No.4 is alleged to have been found betting on the cricket match, and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that cricket is a sport, and

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11041 CRL.P No. 102059 of 2024

¶34

therefore even if betting takes place, it cannot be brought within the ambit of definition of gaming found in Karnataka Police Act. Hence, in the absence of essential elements so as to constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 78(ii) of the Karnataka Police Act, the registration of FIR for the aforesaid offence stands vitiated. Hence, the continuation of criminal investigation will be an abuse of process of law”.

¶35

Relying on the said decision of the Co-ordinate

¶36

Bench, another Co-ordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.100030/ 2024, disposed off on 16.01.2024 has quashed

¶37

proceedings in a similar case.

¶38

In the light of the order passed by the co-

¶39

ordinate benches of this Court, the proceedings initiated against petitioners cannot be sustained. Accordingly, criminal proceedings in so far as it relates to

¶40

petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 stands quashed.

¶41

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶42

RKM

¶43

CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Mahmeraj S/O Hasankhan Pathan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahmeraj S/O Hasankhan Pathan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishwar S/O. Malleshappa Vakkund Vs the M D Nwkrtc, Gokul Road

Smt Latha Angadi W/O Manojkumar Angadi Vs M/S L G Technologies

Managing Director, Nwkrtc, Vs Yallappa S/O Galeppa Katti

Shantanahalli Kodadappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Mallamma W/O Shivappa Tankedar Vs the State of Karnataka

Basappa S/O. Hanumantappa Hedachi Vs the State of Karnataka