Karnataka HC Quashes Matka Case Against Man, Citing Mandatory Magistrate Permission For Non-Cognisable-Offence Investigation

In brief

The question

Whether police could investigate the alleged non-cognizable offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act without following the procedure required by Section 155(1)–(2) Cr.P.C.

The court held

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, Accused No. 2, in C.C. No. 616/2025, arising from Sirsi Town Police Station Crime No. 114/2025, for the alleged offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act.

It also directed

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

On 27 October 2025, police received information about alleged “O.C. Matka” gambling near Zoo Circle Road in Sirsi.

pp. 3–4

During a raid, the petitioner, Accused No. 2, was allegedly found organizing the activity; police seized cash, a pen and a Matka chit.

pp. 3–4

A charge sheet was filed for an offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, and the petitioner sought to quash the proceedings pending before the Principal JMFC, Sirsi.

pp. 3–4

He argued that the offence was non-cognizable and the mandatory procedure under Section 155(1)–(2) Cr.P.C. had not been followed.

pp. 3–4

02Issues

i.Whether police could investigate the alleged non-cognizable offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act without following the procedure required by Section 155(1)–(2) Cr.P.C.

pp. 4–5

ii.Whether the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 616/2025 should be quashed.

pp. 2–3, 9–10

03Law Applied

Section 155(1) Cr.P.C. requires the officer in charge of a police station, upon receiving information about a non-cognizable offence, to enter its substance in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate; under Section 155(2), police may not investigate such a case without an order from a Magistrate empowered to try or commit it.

pp. 4–5

The Court relied on Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2020 KAR 630, which treats these requirements, together with Rules 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, as mandatory and sets out requirements for the Magistrate’s order authorizing investigation.

pp. 5–7

The Court also referred to coordinate-bench decisions concerning betting and the Karnataka Police Act.

pp. 8–9

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 155

KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963. Section 78 Section 2

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the alleged offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act was non-cognizable, making compliance with Section 155(1)–(2) Cr.P.C. necessary before police could investigate.

pp. 4–5, 8

It stated that, without the Magistrate’s authorization, police lacked jurisdiction to investigate and file a charge sheet.

p. 5, 8

The Court then relied on coordinate-bench decisions and concluded that the proceedings against the petitioner could not be sustained.

pp. 8–9

The order does not separately set out the case-specific records concerning referral to the Magistrate or authorization to investigate.

pp. 8–9