NARAPATHKUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated in C.C.No.27/2019, against the petitioner, pending on the file of JMFC III-Court, Hubballi, registered for the offence punishable under section 78(6) of Karnataka Police Act.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent police officer registered a complaint in Gokul Road P.S. Crime No.171/2017 for the offence punishable under section 78(6) of Karnataka Police Act (hereinafter referred to as 'K.P.Act' for short) and under section 420 read with section 34 of IPC, on 28.12.2017, against the petitioner herein. It is alleged in the complaint that on 28.12.2017 around 9.00 p.m., the complainant police officer received information that the accused is collecting amount on betting in respect of cricket match at Akshay Park. Therefore himself along with his staff and panchas went to the said place and conducted raid at 9.45 p.m. When they conducted raid, the accused tried to escape from the spot, they surrounded and apprehended him. On enquiry he disclosed his name. He also disclosed that he was collecting money for betting with respect to cricket match. He seized a bag, laptop, diary and cash of Rs.42,000/- and other articles as stated in the panchanama. He took the accused to the police station and thereafter registered his complaint in Crime No.171/2017. Subsequently the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 78(6) of K.P.Act only and he was not charge sheeted for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC.

(3.) The petitioner has stated that the police had no authority to investigate the matter as the alleged offence under section 420 was not at all made out in the case and the police have not obtained necessary permission under section 155 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is made to face trial without there being any material to proceed against him. Therefore the complaint, FIR and the charge sheet filed against the petitioner are not sustainable in law and are liable to be quashed.