01Facts
The petitioner was arraigned as accused No. 2 in a case alleging illegal cricket betting and prosecuted under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 1–6The complaint described the alleged betting activity but did not name the petitioner; he was implicated on the basis of accused No. 1’s voluntary statement.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 1–6The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings, contending that the Magistrate’s permission required under Section 155 CrPC had not been obtained.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 1–6The State opposed the petition, asserting that permission had been obtained and that the charge sheet disclosed prima facie material.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 1–602Issues
i.1. Whether the proceedings against the petitioner could continue when the complaint did not name him and he was implicated on the basis of a co-accused’s voluntary statement.
p. 6 · ¶ 7ii.2. Whether the proceedings were liable to be quashed because the Investigating Officer had not obtained the Magistrate’s permission required under Section 155 CrPC.
p. 6 · ¶ 703Law Applied
Section 155 CrPC requires the prescribed Magistrate’s permission for the police to investigate a non-cognizable offence; the Court treated that permission as mandatory in this case.
p. 3, 6 · ¶ 1, 7The alleged offence was under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act.
p. 3, 6 · ¶ 1, 7Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482Section 155
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963. Section 78
04Reasoning
The Court observed that the complaint did not mention the petitioner and that he had been implicated on the basis of the co-accused’s voluntary statement.
p. 6 · ¶ 7It further examined the materials before it and found that the Investigating Officer had not obtained the permission required under Section 155 CrPC.
p. 6 · ¶ 7In the absence of that permission, the Court held that the proceedings against the petitioner could not continue.
p. 6 · ¶ 705Holding
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against accused No. 2/petitioner in Crime No. 39/2025, pending as C.C. No. 3848/2025 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, for the offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act.
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 8The pending interlocutory application was disposed of as not surviving for consideration.
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 8Original Court PDF
DATTUSA S/O RAMACHANDRASA SOLUNKEvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
