KIRAN JANARDHAN SHETH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17666
CRL.P No. 105243 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020254822025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD



TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T


CRIMINAL PETITION NO.105243 OF 2025

(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

1. KIRAN JANARDHAN SHETH
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: SHOP BUSINESS,
R/O. JANATA COLONY,
BANAVASI, TQ: SIRSI-581318,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

2. VIJAY NARAYAN DEVADIGA
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. TQ: SIRSI- 581401,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. RAKESH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BANAVASI POLICE STATION U.K.
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)














Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17666
CRL.P No. 105243 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020254822025


THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS R/W
482 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.1999/2025 (CRIME NO. 101/2025
BANAVASI P.S.) AT ANNEXURE-E PENDING BEFORE II ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE JMFC COURT, SIRSI FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT.

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

ORAL ORDER
PER:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
Heard Sri.Rakesh S.Hattikatagi, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri.Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara, learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

2. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed this
petition under Section 528 of BNSS (Section 482 Cr.P.C)
seeking to quash the entire proceedings initiated against them
in C.C.No.1999/2025, pending on the file of learned II
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sirsi arising out of Banavasi
Police Station crime No.101/2025, registered for the offence
punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act,
1963 (“K.P.Act” for short).

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17666
CRL.P No. 105243 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020254822025



3. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as
under:
On 22.09.2025 at 11:10 a.m., the de facto complainant
received a credible information about playing of O.C Matka
being taken place on public road at Janta Colony, Soraba road,
Banavasi. Hence, the de facto complainant secured his sub-
staff and panchas and proceeded to conduct a raid. The de
facto complainant, along with his sub-staff and panchas,
reached the said spot and found that accused No.1 was stating
that he would pay a sum of Rs.80/- for Rs.1/-, thus, the de
facto complainant conducted the raid and seized a sum of
Rs.540/- in cash, a ball pen and a Matka chit under a seizure
panchanama. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer conducted
the investigation and filed the charge sheet. Taking exception
to the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed this
petition seeking to quash the entire proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently
contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in
the case and they have not committed any offence. Further,
the mandatory provisions under Section 155(1) and (2) of

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17666
CRL.P No. 105243 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020254822025


Cr.P.C. have not been complied with. It is contended that the
information was received on 22.09.2025 at 11:10 a.m. and the
raid was conducted at 11:15 a.m. The requisition seeking
permission was submitted to the learned Magistrate on
22.09.2025 at 07:45 p.m. and the FIR was registered on
22.09.2025 at 08:15 p.m. Hence, the Investigating Officer
conducted the investigation without compliance of the statutory
provisions under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the very act of
the respondent-Police apparently reveals that they have not
complied with the mandatory provisions. Accordingly, learned
counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the petition.

2. Per contra , learned HCGP vehemently contended
that the Investigating Officer has complied with the statutory
provisions and filed the charge sheet against the petitioners. It
is contended that the petitioners are involved in the offences
alleged against them. Therefore, the proceedings cannot be
quashed.

3. It is not in dispute that an offence punishable under
Section 78(3) of the Act is a non-cognizable offence. When the
report is received by the Station House Officer of the Police

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17666
CRL.P No. 105243 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020254822025


Station in respect of commission of non-cognizable offence, the
Station House Officer has to follow the mandatory procedure
prescribed under Section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr.P.C.

4. Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. reads as under:
“ 155. Information as to non-cognisable
cases and investigation of such cases.
(1) When information is given to an officer-in-
charge of a police station of the commission
within the limits of such station of a non-
cognisable offence, he shall enter or cause to be
entered the substance of the information in a
book to be kept by such officer in such form as
the State Government may prescribe in this
behalf, and refer the informant to the
Magistrate.
(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-
cognisable case without the order of a Magistrate
having power to try such case or commit the
case for trial.”

5. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, it is the
duty of the Police Officer to enter the substance of the
information in the prescribed book and to refer the informant to
the Magistrate under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C., and thereafter,

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17666
CRL.P No. 105243 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020254822025


the jurisdictional Magistrate is required to pass an order
permitting the Police Officer to investigate the case as required
under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, unless the Police
Officer is permitted by the Magistrate in an order to investigate
a non-cognizable offence, the Police Officer does not get
jurisdiction to investigate the matter and file a final report or
charge-sheet.

6. This Court in the case of VAGGEPPA GURULINGA
JANGALIGI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA , reported in ILR
2020 KAR 630 , considering non-compliance of mandatory
provisions of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C., has held as
under:
“ 20 . Therefore, under Rule 1, the Magistrate shall
endorse on the report whether the same has been
received by post or muddam. Under Rule 2,
Magistrate has to specify in his order the rank and
designation of the Police Officer or the Police Officer
by whom the investigation shall be conducted.
Considering the mandatory requirement of Section
155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C., and Rule 1 and 2 of
Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice,
this Court proceed to laid down the following

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17666
CRL.P No. 105243 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020254822025


guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrate
working in the State.
i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop
hereafter making endorsement as ‘permitted’
on the police requisition itself. Such an
endorsement is not an order in the eyes of
law and as mandated under Section 155(2)
of Cr.P.C.
ii) When the requisition is submitted by the
informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he
should make an endorsement on it as to how
it was received, either by post or by Muddam
and direct the office to place it before him
with a separate order sheet. No order should
be passed on the requisition itself. The said
order sheet should be continued for further
proceedings in the case.
iii) When the requisition is submitted to the
Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first
examine whether the SHO of the police
station has referred the informant to him
with such requisition.
iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should
examine the contents of the requisition with
his/her judicious mind and record finding as
to whether it is a fit case to be investigated,
if the Magistrate finds that it is not a fit case
to investigate, he/she shall reject the prayer

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17666
CRL.P No. 105243 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020254822025


made in the requisition. Only after his/her
subjective satisfaction that there is a ground
to permit the police officer to take up the
investigation, he/she shall record a finding to
that effect permitting the police officer to
investigate the non-cognizable offence.
v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders
permitting the investigation, he/she shall
specify the rank and designation of the Police
Officer who has to investigate the case, who
shall be other than informant or the
complainant.”
7.

8. In view of the mandatory requirements stated in
Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and the ratio laid down in the
decision cited supra , the Station House Officer of the Police
Station has no authority unless the jurisdictional Magistrate
permits him for investigation of non-cognizable offence.

9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Crl.P.No.4090/2023 disposed of on 16.08.2023 at paragraph
Nos.7 & 8 are held as follows:
"7. The coordinate Bench of this Court in Cri.P.
No.2929/2021 at para-12 has held as follows:

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17666
CRL.P No. 105243 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020254822025


"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."
8. Admittedly, the accused No.4 is alleged to
have been found betting on the cricket match, and the
coordinate Bench of this Court has held that 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. 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”.

10. Further, this Court in Crl.P.No.102334/2024
disposed of on 26.07.2024, citing the judgment of the Co-

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17666
CRL.P No. 105243 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020254822025


ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Crl.P.No.4090/2023
disposed of on 16.08.2023.

11. In light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, the proceedings initiated against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, I proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER

(i) The criminal petition is hereby allowed .

(ii) The proceedings initiated against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in
C.C.No.1999/2025, pending on the file of learned
II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sirsi arising
out of Banavasi Police Station crime
No.101/2025, registered for the offence
punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka
Police Act, 1963, are hereby quashed.


In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending I.A’s, if
any, stand disposed of.



Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
AM/-
CT:GSM
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 16