Allowed¶25

Shri Uday S/O Ramakrishna Shetty v. the Stae of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jan 2025CRL.P/100299/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 528 BNSS; Section 78(3) Karnataka Police Act 1963; gambling offence; confession to police inadmissible; Section 25 Indian Evidence Act 1872; co-accused confession as sole material; absence of corroborative evidence; abuse of process of law; Banavasi Police Station; P.S. Crime No.121/2024; CC No.2602/2024; III Addl. JMFC Court, Sirsi; Uttara Kannada; Accused No. 2; Uday S/o Ramakrishna Shetty; High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; criminal proceedings in CC No.2602/2024 (Banavasi P.S. Crime No.121/2024, Section 78(3) KP Act) quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner – Accused No. 2. ¶25

Shri Uday S/O Ramakrishna Shetty Vs the Stae of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; criminal proceedings in CC No.2602/2024 (Banavasi P.S. Crime No.121/2024, Section 78(3) KP Act) quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner – Accused No. 2.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner (Accused No. 2) in CC No. 2602/2024, where the only material is the co-accused's confession statement made to the police with no corroborative evidence, amounts to an abuse of the process of law and warrants quashing.

¶23

Court's answer

It is well-settled law that any confession made to the police is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Apart from the confession statement of Accused No. 1, there is no material evidence to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner was responsible for conducting the gambling game.

¶22

Key takeaways

In the absence of any corroborative material to support the allegation against the petitioner, continuation of the criminal proceedings against him would amount to an abuse of the process of law.ratio¶23
The proceedings in CC No. 2602/2024 pending before the III Addl. JMFC Court, Sirsi are quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner – Accused No. 2.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S. 482 Cr.P.C. / S. 528 BNSS) — quashing — offence under S. 78(3) Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (gambling) — petitioner prosecuted as Accused No. 2 in Banavasi P.S. Crime No. 121/2024, CC No. 2602/2024 (III Addl. JMFC Court, Sirsi) solely on the confession statement of Accused No. 1 recorded by police during a raid — held: confession made to police is inadmissible under S. 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872; no corroborative material against petitioner; continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law — petition allowed; proceedings quashed qua petitioner/Accused No. 2 — Hemant Chandangoudar, J., High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, 25 January 2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1440 CRL.P No. 100299 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100299 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHRI. UDAY S/O. RAMAKRISHNA SHETTY AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. DHARMANABYLE, CHIPAGI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581402.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. R.H.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STAE OF KARNATAKA (BANAVASI POLICE STATION), R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR B K Location: HIGH MAHENDRAKUMAR COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.29 15:27:19 +0530

¶13

(BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN BANAVASI POLICE STATION IN P.S. CRIME NO.121/2024, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 78(3) OF KP ACT, PENDING CC NO.2602/2024, ON THE FILE OF III^RD ADDL.JMFC COURT, SIRSI, SO FAR AS PETITIONER WHO IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.2.

¶15

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶16

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1440 CRL.P No. 100299 of 2025

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent – State.

¶21

The petitioner is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

¶22

The complaint indicates that, upon securing permission, a raid was conducted during which Accused No. 1 was apprehended while engaged in gambling. In his confession statement, Accused No. 1 alleged that the entire game was being conducted at the instance of the petitioner, leading the police to arraign the petitioner as Accused No. 2. However, apart from the confession statement of Accused No. 1, there is no material evidence to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner was responsible for conducting the game.

¶23

It is a well-settled principle of law that any confession made to the police is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the absence of any corroborative material to support the allegation that the petitioner was responsible for conducting the game, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

i) The petition is allowed.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1440 CRL.P No. 100299 of 2025

¶27

ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.2602/2024 pending on the file of the learned III Addl. JMFC Court, Sirsi, insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused No.2 is hereby quashed.

¶28

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶29

BKM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Shri Uday S/O Ramakrishna Shetty v. the Stae of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Uday S/O Ramakrishna Shetty v. the Stae of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Pradeep R Vs State by Karnataka

Krishnegowda. O. R. Vs State of Karnataka

Baddi Raju @ Rajesh.D.S Vs State by Chikkamagaluru Town Police Station

Peer Bi Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Hari Krishna S/O Linganna Manila Vs State of Karnataka

Anurag S/O. Vijay Angolkar, Vs the State of Karnataka