Quashing is unwarranted where raid evidence and the source of seized money raise disputed factual issues.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC, including on the ground that the police had not obtained permission under Section 155(2) CrPC to investigate non-cognizable offences.

The court held

The High Court dismissed the criminal petition and declined to quash the FIR or the proceedings in C.C. No. 505/2020.

It also directed

It expressly granted the petitioners liberty to seek discharge in respect of the offence under Section 269 IPC.

01Facts

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR in Crime No. 109/2020 and the subsequent proceedings in C.C. No. 505/2020, arising from a police raid on 7 April 2020.

p. 4

The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were playing cards and gambling during the COVID-19 restrictions, and that the police seized playing cards and ₹61,240, including ₹11,240 allegedly staked in the game.

p. 4

The case was initially registered under Sections 188 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963; Section 269 IPC was invoked during the investigation.

p. 4

The petitioners contended, among other things, that no Magistrate’s permission had been obtained under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and that the seized money was agricultural income.

pp. 5–6

The State maintained that the raid, seizure, and allegations were matters for trial.

p. 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC, including on the ground that the police had not obtained permission under Section 155(2) CrPC to investigate non-cognizable offences.

pp. 4–5, 8–9

ii.2. Whether the allegations under Section 269 IPC and the petitioners’ explanations concerning the gathering and seized money warranted quashing at the pre-trial stage.

pp. 5–6, 8–9

03Law Applied

Section 482 CrPC provides the High Court’s inherent power to consider quashing criminal proceedings; the Court treated the petitioners’ challenges to the allegations and evidence as matters that could be raised at trial.

pp. 8–9

Section 155(2) CrPC was invoked by the petitioners as requiring a Magistrate’s permission to investigate a non-cognizable offence, but the Court did not decide whether that provision invalidated these proceedings.

p. 5

The Court also considered the alleged offences under Sections 188, 149 and 269 IPC and Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, without resolving their merits at the quashing stage.

p. 4, 8

No precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 144 Section 155

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 269 Section 188 Section 149

KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963. Section 87

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the alleged raid and seizure, the presence of police witnesses, whether the petitioners were gambling, and whether the seized money came from agricultural produce involved disputed factual matters for trial.

pp. 7–9

It likewise treated the challenge to the invocation of Section 269 IPC as an issue to be considered at trial, rather than a basis to quash the entire proceeding at that stage.

p. 8

The Court therefore declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to terminate the case, while leaving the petitioners’ contentions open for the appropriate proceedings.

p. 9