Karnataka HC Quashes Matka Case Against Two Men, Citing Police Investigation Without Prior Magistrate’s Order

In brief

The question

Whether the police could investigate the alleged offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, a non-cognizable offence, without first complying with Section 155(1) and (2) of the Cr.P.C.

The court held

The Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings against both petitioners in C.C. No. 1999/2025, arising from Banavasi Police Station Crime No. 101/2025, for the alleged offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act.

It also directed

Any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of

01Facts

On 22 September 2025, police received information that O.C. Matka was being played on a public road in Banavasi.

pp. 3–4

During a raid, the police allegedly found accused No. 1 accepting bets and seized ₹540, a pen and a Matka chit.

pp. 3–4

A case was registered under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, and a charge sheet was filed.

pp. 3–4

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings, contending that the police had investigated a non-cognizable offence without first obtaining the Magistrate’s authorization required by Section 155 of the Cr.P.C.

pp. 3–4

The information was received at 11:10 a.m., the raid occurred at 11:15 a.m., and the requisition seeking permission was submitted to the Magistrate at 7:45 p.m.; the FIR was registered at 8:15 p.m.

pp. 3–4

02Issues

i.Whether the police could investigate the alleged offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, a non-cognizable offence, without first complying with Section 155(1) and (2) of the Cr.P.C.

pp. 4–5

ii.Whether the proceedings in C.C. No. 1999/2025 were liable to be quashed for non-compliance with those statutory requirements

pp. 5–11

03Law Applied

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

pp. 5–6

The Court relied on Vageppa Gurulinga Jangaligi v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2020 KAR 630, which held that the Magistrate must consider the requisition and pass a proper order authorizing investigation, rather than merely endorse the requisition as “permitted”; the Magistrate must also specify the investigating officer

pp. 6–8

The Court additionally referred to coordinate-bench decisions concerning proceedings under the Karnataka Police Act

pp. 8–10

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 2 Section 78

04Reasoning

The Court treated the alleged offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act as non-cognizable and therefore subject to the mandatory procedure in Section 155 of the Cr.P.C.

p. 4

The raid took place before the requisition for permission was submitted to the Magistrate.

pp. 3–4

Applying Vageppa Gurulinga Jangaligi, the Court held that the police lacked authority to investigate a non-cognizable offence without the Magistrate’s prior authorization and concluded that the proceedings could not be sustained

pp. 5–8, 11