Match fixing does not constitute an offense under section 420 IPC and the offense under section 120B cannot be invoked without allegations constituting an offense under section 420 IPC.

ORDER :

1. All these petitions are disposed of by common order as they are filed for quashing the proceedings in C.C.2939/2020 on the file of I ACMM, Bengaluru.

2. The petitioner in W.P. 13756/2020 is accused No. 1, the petitioner in Criminal Petition 2929/2020 is accused No. 2, the petitioner in Criminal Petition 1769/2021 is accused No. 3 and the petitioner in Criminal Petition 513/2021 is accused No. 4. The necessary facts for disposal of these petitions are as below.

3. On 6.11.2019, K.Prakasha, the Police Inspector, City Crime Branch (Special Investigating), Bengaluru, while interrogating the cricket players, coaches and owners of franchises in connection with Crime No. 124/2019 came to know about match fixing of the KPL cricket matches held in between 15th and 31st August of the year 2019 and gave a report of it to the Cubbon Park Police Station. This resulted in FIR being registered in Crime No. 197/2019 and ultimately charge sheet being filed against the petitioners and some other accused. The contents of charge sheet are that:

(i) On 22.8.2019 a match was played between Bengaluru Blasters and Bellary Tuskers at Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bengaluru. In connection with this match, accused No. 3, the owner of a team called Belagavi Panthers conspired with accused No. 1 and 2 and pursuant to the same accused No. 2 conceded 10 runs in over No. 7. For conceding the runs accused No. 2 received advance of Rs.2.50 lakhs and then after the match was over, he again received Rs.5 Lakhs.

(ii) During KPL season of the year 2018, accused No. 5 asked accused No. 2 to come to his residence on 1.9.2018 and told him that his team should lose the match to be played on 3.9.2018 against Shivamogga team. It is also alleged that accused No. 5 asked accused No. 1 that his team should lose the match to Shivamogga Lions in the said match.

(iii) On 26.8.2019, match No. 19 was played at Mysuru between Mysuru and Bellary teams. Accused No. 5 met accused No. 1 in a hotel called' Southern Star Hotel' and asked him to play slowly.

(iv) Accused No. 4 is a bookie. After the schedule of the matches of the year 2019 was announced, accused No. 4 met accused No. 2 through a witness by name Nitesh at Bengaluru Airport and entered into conspiracy for match fixing. Accordingly, on 23.8.2019, when a match was played between Bellary Tuskers and Shivamogga Lions, accused No. 4 made a whatsapp call to accused No. 2 and instructed him to stop the bowling in the middle itself and offered Rs.10,00,000/- for doing so.

(v) Accused No. 6 is a secretary of Social Club and KSCA member. He, at the instance of accused No. 3 bore all the expenses of the players of other teams.

4. I have heard Sri Hashmath Pasha and Sri Ponnanna, learned senior counsel, Sri Amar Correa and Sri Akshay Prabhu appearing for the petitioners in respective cases, and Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, Additional Advocate General and Sri B.J.Rohith for the respondent/State.

5. One point commonly urged by all the counsel for the petitioners is that match fixing is not an offence, nor has it been defined to be an offence in any law. And offence under section 420 of IPC cannot be imputed against the petitioners for, the essential ingredients for the said offence to constitute are not forthcoming in the charge sheet. Even if it is assumed for argument sake that the petitioners did involve in match fixing, it will not constitute an offence and at best it is breach of the Code of Conduct prescribed to the players by the BCCI. Action may be taken by the BCCI and in this case the Cricket Board has not taken any action against some of the petitioners who are players. In this view, charge sheet for the offence under section 420 IPC is not sustainable and for the same reason the offence of conspiracy punishable according to section 120B is also not sustainable.

5.1. Sri Hashmath Pasha in particular highlighted one point of argument that the very registration of FIR in Crime No. 197 of 2019 is bad because respondent No. 2 made a report to t