KENCHAPPA vs STATE BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57850
CRL.P No. 2956 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010290482020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2956 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. KENCHAPPA
S/O. HALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/O. THALIKATTE VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
2. CHETHAN. R.M.
S/O. MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESIDING NEAR RAILWAY STATION
RAMAGIRI VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
3. RUDRAPPA
S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING NEAR RAILWAY STATION
RAMAGIRI VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
4. BASAVARAJAPPA
S/O. LATE LAKKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING S.T. COLONY
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57850
CRL.P No. 2956 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010290482020
THALIKATTE VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
5. SIDDAPPA B.S.
S/O. LATE SHIVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/O. JANATHA COLONY
RAMAGIRI VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
6. SHANTHARAJU T.R.
S/O. LATE M.V. RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/O. THUPPADAHALLI VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
7. MAHESH NAIKA
S/O. LATE SHEVANAIK
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O. R.D. KAVALU VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
8. RAVI NAYAKA
S/O. LATE RAMA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O. R.D. KAVALU VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. UMESH MULIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
HOLALKERE POLICE STATION, HOLALKERE
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57850
CRL.P No. 2956 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010290482020
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND THE
PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.109/2020 AND TO QUASH THE
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS C.C.N.505/2020 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HOLALKERE, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
269 OF IPC AND SECTION 87 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT
1963.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners and
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-
State.
2. The prayer is sought to quash the FIR and the
proceedings in Crime No.109/2020 and quash further
proceedings in C.C.No.505/2020 pending on the file of learned
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holalkere, Chitradurga District for
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57850
CRL.P No. 2956 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010290482020
the offence punishable under Section 269 of IPC and Section 87
of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and pass such other order as
deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
3. The police have registered the FIR at the first
instance for the offence punishable under Section 188 read with
Section 149 of IPC and also Section 87 of Karnataka Police Act,
1963. The accusation made against the petitioners is that on
07.04.2020 they have received the information at 2.00 p.m.
that these petitioners had indulged in playing cards, inspite of
Section 144 Cr.P.C. was in force in view of COVID-19 and when
the raid was conducted, found the cards and CWs.1, 2, 3, 4 and
10 were also part of the raid and seized in total an amount of
Rs.61,240/- and they had indulged in investing the amount of
Rs.11,240/- at the time of playing card and same are seized
and subjected to PF. The police have conducted investigation
and during the course of investigation, invoked the offence
under Section 269 of IPC that they were gathered at the time
of COVID-19 period and also invoked Section 87 of the
Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57850
CRL.P No. 2956 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010290482020
4. The main contention of learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners is that this is a case of false implication of
the petitioners. The counsel also would vehemently contend
that at the first instance, offences invoked were under Section
188 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 87 of Karnataka
Police Act, 1963 and crime was registered in Crime
No.109/2020. The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate
that insofar as non-cognizable offences are concerned, there
cannot be any registration of FIR or charge sheet, unless the
police investigating the offence obtains prior permission of the
learned trial Magistrate in terms of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
5. In the instant case, it is a matter of record that no
such permission has been obtained by the Magistrate under
Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. The counsel also would vehemently
contend that except, petitioner No.5, who is a Barber by
profession, remaining petitioners are agriculturists. Since there
was lockdown, they were all sitting in thrashing yard of
Kenchappa and having chitchat in the evening hours by
maintaining social distance as it was instructed by the
Government, after returning from the sale of vegetables.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57850
CRL.P No. 2956 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010290482020
Inspite of it, the police have created a false story and
registered the FIR and the amount which was seized is an
agricultural income of the petitioners. The said amount has
been recovered by the police and made a false allegation that
all these petitioners are playing gambling of Andhar Bahar and
it is totally strange. The counsel also would vehemently
contend that petitioners are all hard working farmers and due
to COVID-19, the agricultural works were very slow, however
with great difficulty with little water, they were growing
vegetables for their livelihood and the amount which was seized
is an agricultural amount. Hence, there cannot be any
prosecution against the petitioners.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
for the respondent-State submits that having received the
information, raid was conducted and seized the money and also
gambling card and it was subject matter of PF, whether the
said money which was seized is out of agricultural produce or
not is a matter of trial. He also submits that witnesses C.Ws.4
to 10 are the eyewitnesses, who are part of the raid and also
there was no allegation of enmity between the petitioners and
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57850
CRL.P No. 2956 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010290482020
the police in registering the case. The counsel also would
submit that raid was conducted on 07.04.2020 and at that
time, Section 144 Cr.P.C. was in force in view of COVID-19.
Hence, it is a matter of trial and scope of petition under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. is very limited.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent-State, the accusation made in column No.17 of the
charge sheet is very clear that raid was conducted on
07.04.2020. But, it is not in dispute that said period is a
COVID-19 period. Even Courts and other offices were also
closed due to the impact of COVID-19. But when the raid was
conducted, no doubt, C.Ws.4 to 10 are the police witnesses,
who are the part of raid and whether they were having any
enmity against these petitioners to falsely implicate these
petitioners is also a matter of trial.
8. The other contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners is that offence under Section 269 of IPC cannot be
invoked and also other cognizable offences are invoked, no
permission is obtained and considering invoking of Section 269
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57850
CRL.P No. 2956 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010290482020
of IPC, the same is an issue to be considered at the time of
trial. The amount which was seized is from the agriculture
produce which was sold is also a disputed fact which has to be
considered during the course of trial and question of even
selling the agriculture produce at the time of COVID-19 period
is also an issue to be considered before the Trial Court.
9. When such being the material available on record,
when the eyewitnesses are also part of the raid and amount of
Rs.
61,240/- was seized at the instance of the petitioners when
the raid was conducted, it is a matter of trial. Hence, the
grounds which have been urged before this Court could be
invoked during the course of defence at the time of trial and
therefore, I do not find any grounds to entertain the petition
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
10. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
dismissed.
(i) The criminal petition is
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57850
CRL.P No. 2956 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010290482020
(ii) Liberty is given to the petitioners to seek for
discharge in respect of the offence under Section
269 of IPC, if they choose to file the same.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30