DINESH S/O SUBRAY NAIK vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17667
CRL.P No. 100269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020027692026
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.100269 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
DINESH S/O. SUBRAY NAIK
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. NEAR NEW BUSTAND,
HULEKAL ROAD, RAMNAGAR,
TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA 581453.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAKESH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SIRSI TOWN POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 528 OF BNS R/W
482 OF CRPC., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINT THIS PETITIONER (ACCUSED
NO.2) IN CC NO. 616/2025 AT ANNEXURE-E PENDING BEFORE PRL.
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:
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17667
CRL.P No. 100269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020027692026
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 petitioner/accused No.2 has filed this petition
under Section 528 of BNSS (Section 482 Cr.P.C) seeking to
quash the entire proceedings initiated against him in
C.C.No.616/2025, pending on the file of learned Principal JMFC,
Sirsi arising out of Sirsi Town Police Station crime
No.114/2025, registered for the offence punishable under
Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (“K.P.Act” for
short).
3. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as
under:
On 27.10.2025 at 05:30 p.m., when the de facto
complainant was on patrolling duty, he received credible
information that some activities of O.C. Matka were being
conducted in a public place near Zoo Circle road, Siri Town.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17667
CRL.P No. 100269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020027692026
Hence, he secured some staff and panchas and proceeded to
the said place i.e., near Avemaria School. At that time, the
petitioner was found organizing gambling by telling the public
who were present at the spot that he would give Rs.80 for
Rs.1/- and was writing down the numbers. Hence, at 06:50
p.m., the de facto complainant conducted a raid and seized
cash of Rs.680/-, a ball pen and a Matka O.C. chit under a
seizure panchanama. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer
conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. Taking
exception to the same, the petitioner/accused No.2 has filed
this petition seeking to quash the entire proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
case and he has not committed any offence. Further, the
mandatory provisions under Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C.
have not been complied with. It is contended that 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
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17667
CRL.P No. 100269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020027692026
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 petitioner. It
is contended that the petitioner is involved in the offence
alleged against him. Therefore, the proceedings cannot be
quashed. Hence, learned HCGP prayed to reject the petition.
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
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-
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17667
CRL.P No. 100269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020027692026
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,
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
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17667
CRL.P No. 100269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020027692026
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
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
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17667
CRL.P No. 100269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020027692026
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
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 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17667
CRL.P No. 100269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020027692026
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:
"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."
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17667
CRL.P No. 100269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020027692026
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-
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
petitioner/accused No.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
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17667
CRL.P No. 100269 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020027692026
petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.616/2025,
pending on the file of learned Principal JMFC
Court, Sirsi arising out of Sirsi Town Police
Station crime No.114/2025, registered for the
offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the
Karnataka Police Act, 1963, insofar as
petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned, is hereby
quashed.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending I.A’s, if
any, stand disposed off.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
AM/-
CT:GSM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18