IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12806 OF 2025 BETWEEN: RAJESH R., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O RAJAPPA R/AT FLAT NO.135, 4^TH FLOOR

3^RD CROSS, 13^TH MAIN ROAD KODIHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 008.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANDRA MOHAN K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CCB (CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH)

Digitally signed by SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE LAKSHMI T Location: SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court of Karnataka HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. MR. DAYANANDA M. J., POLICE OFFICER AGE: MAJOR JEEVANA BHEEMANAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS)

CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND THEREBY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.4241/2025 IN CR.NO.90/2025 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS TRAFFIC COURT IV BENGALURU CITY P/U/S/

78(3) OF K.P. ACT 1963.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner, arraigned as accused No.1 in crime No.90/2025 of Jeevan Bheemanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, has preferred this petition, seeking to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.4241/2025, pending on the file of the Court of JMFC Traffic Court-IV, Bengaluru City.

2. FIR is registered on a suo motu complaint lodged by the Police Inspector, CCB Special Investigation Squad, Shantinagar against the petitioner and two others for the offence punishable under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. The Police have filed charge sheet on completion of investigation.

3. It is the case of prosecution that the accused were involved in cricket betting as per the credible information received and on their apprehension, seized the cash, mobile phones and mobile screenshots.

4. It is alleged that on an enquiry with the accused, they revealed that accused Nos.1 and 2 obtained a user ID of one 'Dubai Exchange.by Max Sports website', password etc. from accused No.3 and thereafter started gambling relating to cricket betting and accused confessed that they were getting a profit of 10% through online cricket betting.

5. As could be seen from the charge sheet materials, the above allegations are based only on the voluntary statements of the accused. It is categorically stated in the charge sheet that there was no material collected to show that any amount was transferred from the bank account of accused Nos.1 and 2 to the bank account of accused No.3, even after examination of the CDR, but the accused were only making whatsapp calls. Hence, the prosecution has failed to collect any substantial or sufficient material to show that the petitioner was involved in cricket betting as alleged. The allegations made on the basis of confessional statement of the accused cannot be the basis for filing the charge sheet for the offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act.

6. The learned counsel has relied on the decisions of this Court in Gajanana vs. State of Karnataka (Crl.P.No.102450/2024 dated 20.01.2025) and Mr.Raghavendra Shetty vs. State of Karnataka and Another (Crl.P.No.4090/2023 dated 16.08.2023). It is held, even accepting that the accused were involved in betting on the cricket match, the same does not come under the definition of 'gaming' as defined under Section 2(7) of the Karnataka Police Act and therefore, in the absence of essential elements so as to constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 78 of the Karnataka Police Act, the FIR for the said offence would vitiate.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER (i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The entire proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.4241/2025 pending on the file of the Court of JMFC Traffic Court-IV, Bengaluru City for the offence under Sec