MR. C M GAUTAM vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2929/2020 C/W CRIMINAL PETITIONS NO.513/2021, 1769/2021 AND WRIT PETITION NO.13756/2020(GM-RES)

In Crl.P.No.2929/2020

BETWEEN:

Sri Abrar Kazi, S/o Abdul Jabbar Kazi, Aged about 29 years, R/at Flat No.401, Samakyas Pride, Ashoka Lane, Green Glance Layout, Bellanduru, Bengaluru-560103. …Petitioner (By Sri Amar Correa, Advocate)

AND:

Through CCB Police,

Bengaluru-560002.

Represented by

State Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Karnataka,

Bengaluru-560001.

Police Inspector,

CCB Special Enquiry,

N.T.Pete, Bengaluru-560002. …Respondents

:: 2 ::

(By Sri M.Dhyan Chinnappa, Addl. Advocate General a/w Sri B.J.Rohith HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 11.02.2020 in Cr.No.197/2019 now registered as C.C.No.2939/2020 passed by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, thereby taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 120B read with 420 and 34 of IPC against the petitioner who is accused No.2 vide Annexure-A and etc.

In Crl.P.No.513/2021

BETWEEN:

Sri Amit Mavi, Son of Gyanendra, Aged about 36 years, Residing at No.C81, Lal Bag Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201102. …Petitioner (By Sri Akshay Prabhu, Advocate)

AND:

Cubbon Park Police Station,

Bengaluru City

Investigation by

Central Crime Branch,

(Organized Crime Wing)

Bengaluru City

Represented by the

State Public Prosecutor,

:: 3 ::

High Court Buildings,

Bengaluru-560001.

Police Inspector,

Central Crime Branch Organized Crime Wing Cottonpet Main Road, Sultanpet, Bakshi Gardens, Chickpet, Bengaluru-560053. …Respondents

(By Sri M.Dhyan Chinnappa, Addl. Advocate General a/w Sri B.J.Rohith, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the FIR in Cr.No.197/2019 of the Cubbon Park Police Station and the subsequent charge sheet arising out of the same, which is registered as C.C.No.2939/2020 on the file of the Hon’ble I A.C.M.M at Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 420, 120B of IPC read with Section 34. In Crl.P.No.1769/2021

BETWEEN:

Ali Ashpak @ Asfak Hanif Thara S/o Mr. Hanif Thara Aged about 41 years, R/at No.10, Patalamma Road, United Pearl Apartments, Fourth Floor, Flat No.T/4, Near AV Hospital, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru-560004. …Petitioner (By Sri A.S.Ponnanna, Senior Counsel for Smt. P.Leela, Advocate)

:: 4 ::

AND:

Represented by the

State Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Karnataka

Bengaluru-560001.

Inspector,

Central Crime Branch Enquires, N.T.Pet, Bengaluru City -560002. …Respondents

(By Sri M.Dhyan Chinnappa, Addl. Advocate General a/w Sri B.J.Rohith, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.2939/2020 dated 05.02.2020 vide Annexure-C for offences punishable under Section 420, 120B and 34 of the IPC, pending on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru City and all further proceedings pursuant thereto. In W.P.No.13756/2020

BETWEEN:

Mr. C.M.Gautam, S/o C.Muralidharan, Aged about 33 years, R/at No.424, 6th Main, Amar Jyothi Layout (West Wing)

:: 5 ::

Domaluru, Bengaluru-560071. …Petitioner (By Sri Hashmath Pasha, Senior Advocate for Sri Syed Muzakkir Ahmed, Advocate)

AND:

Police Inspector,

Central Crime Branch Police, Special Investigation Squad, Bengaluru City -560053.

(Both are represented by Learned State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560001). …Respondents

(By Sri M.Dhyan Chinnappa, Addl. Advocate General a/w Sri B.J.Rohith, HCGP)

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash entire proceedings pending in C.C.No.2939/2020 on the file of the Hon’ble I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City and which is arising out of Crime No.197/2019 of Cubbon Park Police, Bengaluru City and which is investigated by CCB Police, Bengaluru for offence punishable under Section 120-B,

:: 6 ::

420 read with 34 of IPC as an abuse of process of law as per Annexure-A and C and etc.

These Criminal and Writ Petitions having been heard and reserved on 06.12.2021 coming on for pronouncement this day, the court pronounced the following: ORDER 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.

:: 7 ::

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

:: 8 ::

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

:: 9 ::

‘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

:: 10 ::

expenses of the players of other teams.

:: 11 ::

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 the Cubbon Park police based on some information he elicited or extracted from accused No.2 while interrogating him in connection with another case. But, the information the respondent extracted while interrogating accused 2 has not been produced and because of this faulty procedure, FIR deserves to be quashed.

:: 12 ::

5.2. Sri Akshay Prabhu, learned counsel, argued that statement made by an accused cannot be used against co-accused or even against one who made it if the statement is inculpatory in nature. Since registration of FIR is based on confession statement of an accused, FIR is bad in law and consequently the charge sheet is also bad.

5.3. Sri Ponnanna also submitted that FIR cannot be registered on the basis of information received during custodial interrogation.

:: 13 ::

mind that they are going to watch a fair play which will yield a just result. If match fixing takes place, the result is pre-determined and there is no fair game. Thus people are cheated. The property involved in a case of this type to invoke the offence under section 420 IPC is the money that the people pay for buying tickets. They are induced to buy tickets for the fair play assured and in case there is match fixing, certainly element of deception can be made out and thus section 420 is attracted. He also argued that section 120B IPC is an independent offence, there are materials in the charge sheet indicating conspiracy among the accused for fixing the game. Even assuming that section 420 is not attracted, the petitioners can be tried for the offence under section 120B IPC. Thus, it is his argument that all the petitions are devoid of merits.

:: 14 ::

:: 15 ::

confession of an accused and this is the reason for taking strong objection for registration of FIR in Crime No. 197/2019 which has given rise to charge sheet in the case on hand. Of course there is substance in the argument that the confession statement of an accused given before the police cannot be referred to in view of bar contained in section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. But, the said bar is to the extent of proving the confession against the accused who made it, there is no prohibition as such to make use of any information that a police officer comes to know for the first time regarding a crime which might have taken place in the past and not detected till then, while interrogating an accused in connection with another case of crime. Supposing that an accused himself goes to police station and gives information about the offence committed by him, the police in such a circumstance can very well register an FIR and this proposition is well

:: 16 ::

established [Faddi vs State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1964 SC 1850) and Aghnoo Nagesia vs State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 119)]. If this is the position, why a statement given by a co- accused regarding another crime cannot be made use of for registration of FIR. In fact many incidents of theft, robbery or dacoity come to light only during such interrogations. It may be stated further that such statement can be made use of only for the limited purpose of registration of FIR and it cannot be used for proving it against an accused. Registration of FIR is not the end in itself and it is not a substantive piece of evidence also. Mere registration of FIR in this manner does not lead to convicting an accused, investigator has to collect independent evidence and further the prosecution must be able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore the entire argument that statement of a co-accused during interrogation in connection with some other crime

:: 17 ::

cannot form basis for registration of FIR is totally unfounded.

:: 18 ::

No.2 shows information that he collected regarding match fixing for the KPL matches of the season 2019 and this much of information can certainly be basis for registration of FIR if really an offence has been committed. Therefore this argument is also not acceptable.

:: 19 ::

their money. Of course money is a property, but his argument that they are induced to buy tickets cannot be accepted. They may have a feeling that they are going to witness a fair game being played, but, they buy the tickets voluntarily. So, question of inducement to buy ticket can be ruled out.

:: 20 ::

committed, is not permitted. Even if the entire charge sheet averments are taken to be true on their face value, they do not constitute an offence.

:: 21 ::

:: 22 ::

invoked in the facts and circumstances. Therefore the argument of Sri Dhyan Chinnappa cannot be accepted.

SD/- JUDGE

Ckl/-