Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3367
CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14345 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI NASIR
S/O MAHAMMEDSAB,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/O VANIVILASAPURA VILLAGE,
HIRIYUR TALUK - 577 511
CHITRADURGA KARNATAKA
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY HIRIYUR RURAL POLICE STATION,
HIRIYUR – 577 511
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
CUBBON PARK,
BENGALURU – 560 001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, LEARNED HCGP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS),
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.465/2024 (CR.NO.551/2023) REGISTERED FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 79 AND 80 OF K.P. ACT, 1963, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HIRIYUR,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT THE
HIRIYUR RURAL POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
INITIATED ON SUO MOTO COMPLAINT OF THE RESPONDENT.
Digitally
signed by
NAGAVENI
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3367
CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CORAM:
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah,
appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned
HCGP appearing for the respondent and have perused the
material on record.
2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the
following prayer:
"a. Quash the entire proceedings in CC No.465/2024
(Crime No.551/2023), registered, for the alleged
offences U/Sec 79 & 80 of the KP Act, 1963,
pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC
Court, Hiriyur, Chitradurga District registered by
the Respondent, the Hiriyur Rural Police Station,
Chitradurga District, initiated on Suo Moto
complaint of the Respondent.
b) Pass any other order or orders, which this Hon'ble
Court deems it just and necessary in facts and
circumstances of the present case, in the interest of
justice and equity. "
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment
rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3367
CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024
HC-KAR
Crl.P.No.100265/2025 c/w Crl.P.No.101043/2024 disposed on
27.06.2025, wherein it has held as follows:
ORAL ORDER
Criminal Petition No.100265 of 2025 is filed by accused Nos.2
to 5, 7, 9 to 36 and 38 to 71 and Criminal Petition No.101043 of
2024 is filed by accused Nos.1, 6, 8, 37 and 72. Both these petitions
are arising out of same crime number and hence, they are taken up
together and disposed off.
2. These criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire proceedings in
Criminal Case No.1290 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
First Class-III Court, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under
Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short,
'Act').
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, Sri B.R. Gaddekar,
Police Inspector, CEN Crime Police, Belagavi, filed a complaint
alleging that on 05.11.2023 at about 01.50 p.m., when he was in
Police Station, he received credible information that in Sanskruti
Farm First Floor in Bailhongal, one Mahantesh Turmuri, R/O.
Bailhongal and 8 to 10 people are playing andar bahar cards.
Therefore, he lodged N.C. No.22 of 2023 under Section 87 of the Act
and after securing permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate, he
conducted raid on the said persons, seized six set of playing cards,
mobiles, and cash of Rs.2,20,290/- and arrested them. Hence, the
Station House Officer registered a case in Crime No.93 of 2023 for
the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Act. In turn,
the Investigating Officer conducted investigation and filed charge-
sheet against seventy-two persons.
4. Taking exception to the same, the petitioners have preferred these
petitions.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the
offences alleged against the petitioners are completely false. The
complaint being that the petitioners were engaged in gambling is
incorrect and he submits that the reference to 'common gaming
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3367
CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024
HC-KAR
house' has to be considered in respect of Section 2(3) of the Act.
Hence, the house as described in the complaint would not qualify for
the said definition. He further contended that a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of K.N. SURESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
ANOTHER reported in ILR 2012 KAR 1443 held that andar bahar is
not a game of skill and is mere a game of chance. Therefore, the
offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Act are not
attracted. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State
has contended that when the petitioners were playing andar bahar, a
huge amount was seized from them, which indicates that they were
engaged in gambling and therefore, the proceedings ought not to be
quashed. She relies upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this
court in Criminal Petition No.102114 of 2019 disposed on 24-2-2020.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the issue
in the case at hand stands covered by the judgments rendered by the
Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Petition No.100877 of
2014, disposed on 13.06.2014, which read as follows:
"5. On analysing the above said provision of law, this
Court has rendered a decision reported in 1971(2) Mys.
L.J. 187 in the case of Chickarangappa & Others Vs.
State of Mysore and another decision reported in 1977
(1) K.L.J. 274 in the case of Eranna Vs. State of
Karnataka, which decisions declare that, “playing ‘Andar
Bahar’ is a game of skill and not mere a game of chance
and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 79
and 80 of the Act are not attracted”.
6. In the ruling reported in 1977 (1) K.L.J. 274 (supra),
this Court has categorically held that, game of ‘Andar
Bahar’ is not a game of chance. The facts are also little
bit relevant as quoted in the said case. At paragraph 7
of the said judgment, it is stated that;
“In this view of the matter, the essential ingredient of
the offence was not proved. It could not be established
that the petitioner – accused were playing a game of
chance and one does not know how the game ‘Andar
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3367
CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024
HC-KAR
Bahar’ is actually played with the assistance of cards.
Even if any betting was resorted to and even if any
pledge of moveables was made in support of that
betting, that by itself did not convert a game of a skill
into a game of chance. At any rate it was not
categorically proved that ‘Andar Bahar’ is a game of
chance and that these accused were playing that game.
They were not covered under the definition of gaming in
a common house. Since the institution where the
accused were found playing the game with cards is a
club, it is not unusual that cards are played in a club,
and it may even be that some betting was also being
done. These facts by themselves never proved that a
game of chance was being played or that no skill was
involved in that game so that it could be considered to
be a mere game of chance. It is manifest that a game of
skill would not be held to be gambling for the purpose of
the Act. In this view of the matter, no offence under
Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963
was made out against the petitioners. Hence the
conviction of sentence was set aside”.
and in Criminal Revision Petition No.100031 of 2014,
disposed on 03.03.2015, it is held as follows:
"This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. by the State, aggrieved by
the order passed by the learned Magistrate in releasing
the interim custody of the cash amount in favour of
accused No.2/respondent No.2.
2. Succinctly stated, the P.S.I. of Honnavar Police
Station charge sheeted the respondents for the offence
punishable under Section 87 of K.P. Act. The accused
were on bail. During the raid the Investigating Officer
had seized cash of Rs.34,468/-, which is alleged to be
the gaming money. Respondent No.2 moved an
application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of
the said amount. The application was contested by the
prosecution. The court below allowed the application
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3367
CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024
HC-KAR
and released the interim custody of cash amount in
favour of the applicant / respondent No.2 on executing
an indemnity bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for
the likesum. However, care was taken by the court
below by directing accused No.1 to assist the C.M.O. of
the Court to take the photographs of the currency notes
at his cost.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner – State submits
that the trial Court has lost sight of the fact that the
amount was seized while the accused were indulged in
playing Andar Bahar. In the event prosecution
successfully proves its case, said money is liable to be
confiscated to the State Government. The court had
acted on the fabricated documents produced by the
accused No.2 projecting that the money belong to
Srikumar Roadlines, under whom he was employed.
Though the prosecution had disputed the said document
without probing about the veracity of the document, the
trial Court has hurriedly released the interim custody of
the cash amount. In fact the said cash amount is
required to be marked in evidence during the trial. The
currency notes are not perishable in nature and there
was no dire necessity to release the interim custody of
the cash amount in favour of second applicant. The
accused No.5 has pleaded guilty and was imposed fine,
that strengthens the case of prosecution. In the
judgment of this Court reported in 1993 CRL.L.J. 3109
in the case of T. Narayanaswamy vs. State and Others,
it has been held that release of money seized for the
interim custody is bad in law. Hence, the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.
4. In reply, Sri Anoop G. Deshpande, learned counsel
for R1 to R4 and R6 to R7 submits that the impugned
order being in the nature of interlocutory order is not
amenable to the revision jurisdiction. Hence, the very
petition itself is not maintainable. In fact, the money
seized was not the gaming money, but it belongs to his
employer Srikumar Roadlines and the court below
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3367
CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024
HC-KAR
having satisfied about his contention was pleased to
release the interim custody to his possession. However,
the interest of State is protected by directing him to
execute the indemnity bond for Rs.50,000/- with one
surety for the likesum. Even the interest of the
prosecution about the identification of the currency
notes is also taken care by directing him to assist the
C.M.O. of the Court at his cost in taking photographs of
the currency notes.
5. Respondent No.5 is served and not represented.
6. As regards the first contention about the
maintainability of the revision petition, by a catena of
judicial pronouncements of this Court and other High
Courts, it is held that the release of interim custody of
the seized property is the nature of adjudication of the
rights of the parties in reference to the said property.
The said order is amenable for revision jurisdiction
under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Hence, there is no merit in
the contention that this petition is not maintainable.
7. As regards the merit of the impugned order is
concerned, the court below being convinced with a
certificate produced by the second applicant issued by
his employer Srikumar Roadlines and also daily enquiry
report dated 14.11.2012 has inferred that he is an
employee of the said Roadlines. Keeping open the
question of the ownership of the seized property/cash
amount in question the court below has ordered interim
custody by taking the photographs of currency notes
and also by calling upon the applicant to execute the
indemnity bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the
likesum. 8. Under the circumstances, I hold that the
impugned has not prejudiced the case of the State and
it is not illegal. The grounds urged by the State lacks
merits and does not call for interference of this Court.
Accordingly, petition is rejected".
8. In the light of the afore-extracted judgments rendered by the Co-
ordinate Benches of this Court and in the facts obtaining in the case
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3367
CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024
HC-KAR
at hand, which covers the issue on all its fours, I deem it appropriate
to quash the proceedings, qua the petitioners.
9. For the reasons aforementioned, the Court proceeds to pass the
following
O R D E R
i. Criminal petitions are allowed.
ii. ii. The proceedings in Criminal Case No.1290 of 2024 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-III,
Belagavi, for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and
80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, qua the
petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5, 7, 9 to 36 and 38 to 71 in
Criminal Petition No.100265 of 2025, and the
petitioners/accused Nos.1, 6, 8, 37 and 72 in Criminal
Petition No.101043 of 2024, stand quashed.
iii. Pending IA’s if any, in both the petitions, stand disposed off.
In the light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the
following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.465/2024 pending
before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court,
Hiriyur, Chitradurga District, stand quashed, qua
the petitioner.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
TS,List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27
NC: 2026:KHC:3367
CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14345 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI NASIR
S/O MAHAMMEDSAB,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/O VANIVILASAPURA VILLAGE,
HIRIYUR TALUK - 577 511
CHITRADURGA KARNATAKA
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY HIRIYUR RURAL POLICE STATION,
HIRIYUR – 577 511
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
CUBBON PARK,
BENGALURU – 560 001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, LEARNED HCGP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS),
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.465/2024 (CR.NO.551/2023) REGISTERED FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 79 AND 80 OF K.P. ACT, 1963, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HIRIYUR,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT THE
HIRIYUR RURAL POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
INITIATED ON SUO MOTO COMPLAINT OF THE RESPONDENT.
Digitally
signed by
NAGAVENI
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3367
CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CORAM:
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah,
appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned
HCGP appearing for the respondent and have perused the
material on record.
2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the
following prayer:
"a. Quash the entire proceedings in CC No.465/2024
(Crime No.551/2023), registered, for the alleged
offences U/Sec 79 & 80 of the KP Act, 1963,
pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC
Court, Hiriyur, Chitradurga District registered by
the Respondent, the Hiriyur Rural Police Station,
Chitradurga District, initiated on Suo Moto
complaint of the Respondent.
b) Pass any other order or orders, which this Hon'ble
Court deems it just and necessary in facts and
circumstances of the present case, in the interest of
justice and equity. "
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment
rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3367
CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024
HC-KAR
Crl.P.No.100265/2025 c/w Crl.P.No.101043/2024 disposed on
27.06.2025, wherein it has held as follows:
ORAL ORDER
Criminal Petition No.100265 of 2025 is filed by accused Nos.2
to 5, 7, 9 to 36 and 38 to 71 and Criminal Petition No.101043 of
2024 is filed by accused Nos.1, 6, 8, 37 and 72. Both these petitions
are arising out of same crime number and hence, they are taken up
together and disposed off.
2. These criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire proceedings in
Criminal Case No.1290 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
First Class-III Court, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under
Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short,
'Act').
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, Sri B.R. Gaddekar,
Police Inspector, CEN Crime Police, Belagavi, filed a complaint
alleging that on 05.11.2023 at about 01.50 p.m., when he was in
Police Station, he received credible information that in Sanskruti
Farm First Floor in Bailhongal, one Mahantesh Turmuri, R/O.
Bailhongal and 8 to 10 people are playing andar bahar cards.
Therefore, he lodged N.C. No.22 of 2023 under Section 87 of the Act
and after securing permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate, he
conducted raid on the said persons, seized six set of playing cards,
mobiles, and cash of Rs.2,20,290/- and arrested them. Hence, the
Station House Officer registered a case in Crime No.93 of 2023 for
the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Act. In turn,
the Investigating Officer conducted investigation and filed charge-
sheet against seventy-two persons.
4. Taking exception to the same, the petitioners have preferred these
petitions.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the
offences alleged against the petitioners are completely false. The
complaint being that the petitioners were engaged in gambling is
incorrect and he submits that the reference to 'common gaming
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3367
CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024
HC-KAR
house' has to be considered in respect of Section 2(3) of the Act.
Hence, the house as described in the complaint would not qualify for
the said definition. He further contended that a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of K.N. SURESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
ANOTHER reported in ILR 2012 KAR 1443 held that andar bahar is
not a game of skill and is mere a game of chance. Therefore, the
offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Act are not
attracted. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State
has contended that when the petitioners were playing andar bahar, a
huge amount was seized from them, which indicates that they were
engaged in gambling and therefore, the proceedings ought not to be
quashed. She relies upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this
court in Criminal Petition No.102114 of 2019 disposed on 24-2-2020.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the issue
in the case at hand stands covered by the judgments rendered by the
Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Petition No.100877 of
2014, disposed on 13.06.2014, which read as follows:
"5. On analysing the above said provision of law, this
Court has rendered a decision reported in 1971(2) Mys.
L.J. 187 in the case of Chickarangappa & Others Vs.
State of Mysore and another decision reported in 1977
(1) K.L.J. 274 in the case of Eranna Vs. State of
Karnataka, which decisions declare that, “playing ‘Andar
Bahar’ is a game of skill and not mere a game of chance
and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 79
and 80 of the Act are not attracted”.
6. In the ruling reported in 1977 (1) K.L.J. 274 (supra),
this Court has categorically held that, game of ‘Andar
Bahar’ is not a game of chance. The facts are also little
bit relevant as quoted in the said case. At paragraph 7
of the said judgment, it is stated that;
“In this view of the matter, the essential ingredient of
the offence was not proved. It could not be established
that the petitioner – accused were playing a game of
chance and one does not know how the game ‘Andar
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3367
CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024
HC-KAR
Bahar’ is actually played with the assistance of cards.
Even if any betting was resorted to and even if any
pledge of moveables was made in support of that
betting, that by itself did not convert a game of a skill
into a game of chance. At any rate it was not
categorically proved that ‘Andar Bahar’ is a game of
chance and that these accused were playing that game.
They were not covered under the definition of gaming in
a common house. Since the institution where the
accused were found playing the game with cards is a
club, it is not unusual that cards are played in a club,
and it may even be that some betting was also being
done. These facts by themselves never proved that a
game of chance was being played or that no skill was
involved in that game so that it could be considered to
be a mere game of chance. It is manifest that a game of
skill would not be held to be gambling for the purpose of
the Act. In this view of the matter, no offence under
Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963
was made out against the petitioners. Hence the
conviction of sentence was set aside”.
and in Criminal Revision Petition No.100031 of 2014,
disposed on 03.03.2015, it is held as follows:
"This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. by the State, aggrieved by
the order passed by the learned Magistrate in releasing
the interim custody of the cash amount in favour of
accused No.2/respondent No.2.
2. Succinctly stated, the P.S.I. of Honnavar Police
Station charge sheeted the respondents for the offence
punishable under Section 87 of K.P. Act. The accused
were on bail. During the raid the Investigating Officer
had seized cash of Rs.34,468/-, which is alleged to be
the gaming money. Respondent No.2 moved an
application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of
the said amount. The application was contested by the
prosecution. The court below allowed the application
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3367
CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024
HC-KAR
and released the interim custody of cash amount in
favour of the applicant / respondent No.2 on executing
an indemnity bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for
the likesum. However, care was taken by the court
below by directing accused No.1 to assist the C.M.O. of
the Court to take the photographs of the currency notes
at his cost.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner – State submits
that the trial Court has lost sight of the fact that the
amount was seized while the accused were indulged in
playing Andar Bahar. In the event prosecution
successfully proves its case, said money is liable to be
confiscated to the State Government. The court had
acted on the fabricated documents produced by the
accused No.2 projecting that the money belong to
Srikumar Roadlines, under whom he was employed.
Though the prosecution had disputed the said document
without probing about the veracity of the document, the
trial Court has hurriedly released the interim custody of
the cash amount. In fact the said cash amount is
required to be marked in evidence during the trial. The
currency notes are not perishable in nature and there
was no dire necessity to release the interim custody of
the cash amount in favour of second applicant. The
accused No.5 has pleaded guilty and was imposed fine,
that strengthens the case of prosecution. In the
judgment of this Court reported in 1993 CRL.L.J. 3109
in the case of T. Narayanaswamy vs. State and Others,
it has been held that release of money seized for the
interim custody is bad in law. Hence, the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.
4. In reply, Sri Anoop G. Deshpande, learned counsel
for R1 to R4 and R6 to R7 submits that the impugned
order being in the nature of interlocutory order is not
amenable to the revision jurisdiction. Hence, the very
petition itself is not maintainable. In fact, the money
seized was not the gaming money, but it belongs to his
employer Srikumar Roadlines and the court below
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3367
CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024
HC-KAR
having satisfied about his contention was pleased to
release the interim custody to his possession. However,
the interest of State is protected by directing him to
execute the indemnity bond for Rs.50,000/- with one
surety for the likesum. Even the interest of the
prosecution about the identification of the currency
notes is also taken care by directing him to assist the
C.M.O. of the Court at his cost in taking photographs of
the currency notes.
5. Respondent No.5 is served and not represented.
6. As regards the first contention about the
maintainability of the revision petition, by a catena of
judicial pronouncements of this Court and other High
Courts, it is held that the release of interim custody of
the seized property is the nature of adjudication of the
rights of the parties in reference to the said property.
The said order is amenable for revision jurisdiction
under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Hence, there is no merit in
the contention that this petition is not maintainable.
7. As regards the merit of the impugned order is
concerned, the court below being convinced with a
certificate produced by the second applicant issued by
his employer Srikumar Roadlines and also daily enquiry
report dated 14.11.2012 has inferred that he is an
employee of the said Roadlines. Keeping open the
question of the ownership of the seized property/cash
amount in question the court below has ordered interim
custody by taking the photographs of currency notes
and also by calling upon the applicant to execute the
indemnity bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the
likesum. 8. Under the circumstances, I hold that the
impugned has not prejudiced the case of the State and
it is not illegal. The grounds urged by the State lacks
merits and does not call for interference of this Court.
Accordingly, petition is rejected".
8. In the light of the afore-extracted judgments rendered by the Co-
ordinate Benches of this Court and in the facts obtaining in the case
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3367
CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024
HC-KAR
at hand, which covers the issue on all its fours, I deem it appropriate
to quash the proceedings, qua the petitioners.
9. For the reasons aforementioned, the Court proceeds to pass the
following
O R D E R
i. Criminal petitions are allowed.
ii. ii. The proceedings in Criminal Case No.1290 of 2024 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-III,
Belagavi, for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and
80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, qua the
petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5, 7, 9 to 36 and 38 to 71 in
Criminal Petition No.100265 of 2025, and the
petitioners/accused Nos.1, 6, 8, 37 and 72 in Criminal
Petition No.101043 of 2024, stand quashed.
iii. Pending IA’s if any, in both the petitions, stand disposed off.
In the light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the
following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.465/2024 pending
before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court,
Hiriyur, Chitradurga District, stand quashed, qua
the petitioner.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
TS,List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27