Sri. Harshavardan. H Vs the State of Karnataka

Court is of the considered view that the act of selling IPL tickets at a higher price (“in black”) does not, by itself, constitute an offence. This Court, in a series of judgments, has consistently held that the sale of tickets at a higher rate does not attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS, 2023. It is therefore apposite to refer to the relevant observations of the Co-ordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.14150/2025. Paragraph No.6 of the said decision, which is germane to the present case, is extracted below:

¶39

" 6. The contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader cannot be accepted, since the accused have not sold or transferred the tickets to anyone. Be that as it may, a coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7476/2025 while disposing of the said petition vide order dated 27.05.2025, in an identical circumstances has held that in such a scenario the proceedings cannot be allowed to go on. The paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said order are extracted hereunder:

¶40

5. In that regard, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in MANDEEP SINGH

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:48114 CRL.P No. 11428 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Vs. STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER reported in 2015 SCC online P&H 13773 on particularly paragraph-15 thereof which is reproduced hereunder:

¶45

"15. In India, there is no legal restriction against reselling match tickets. There is a restriction for transfer of some train tickets but not all of them and are nontransferable. It is not the case here that the tickets were fake. It is not the case of the prosecution that the tickets were not transferable."

¶46

6. Relying on Mandeep Singh's case, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there being no restriction on reselling match tickets there cannot be any offence which could be said to be made out under Section 318 of the BNS, 2023. Section 318 of the BNS, 2023 is reproduced herein for easy reference

¶47

"318. Cheating-(1) whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48114 CRL.P No. 11428 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat."

¶51

In view of the legal position laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in an identical matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the present proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose. Even if the allegations contained in the complaint are accepted on their face value and taken at their highest, the essential ingredients constituting the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 are not made out. The likelihood of securing a conviction, therefore, is extremely remote and bleak. In such circumstances, permitting the prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, this Court finds it appropriate to invoke the

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48114 CRL.P No. 11428 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

inherent jurisdiction conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶55

Having regard to the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the allegations do not prima-facie disclose the commission of any offence as alleged. The initiation and continuation of proceedings against the petitioner, therefore, constitute an abuse of process of the Court. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) The Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.

¶58

(ii) The charge-sheet and all further proceedings in C.C.No.23388/2025 arising out of Crime No.139/2025 for the alleged offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 are hereby quashed.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶61

NBM

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Sri. Harshavardan. H v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Harshavardan. H v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rudrappa S/O Sri Badagi Thippaiah Vs Hanumakka W/O Sri Eranna

Shivanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Malashri Vs Sharanamma

Vinay Badigger Vs the State of Karnataka

Rayappa S/O Gundappa Doddamani and Anr. Vs Smt.Putalabai W/O Bhimashankar Mala Since Decd.Ors

Shivamma Vs the State of Karnataka