High Court Quashes Betting Proceedings Against Two Accused, Cites Non‑Compliance With Section 155 CrPC and Parity With Earlier Order

A single‑judge bench of Justice M. G. Uma of the Karnataka High Court heard a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging proceedings in CC No. 2829/2019 pending before the JMFC III, Mangalore, arising from an FIR registered for offences under Sections 78 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act relating to alleged cricket betting.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against petitioners Alywin Kiran Monthero and Kishore D'Souza. The judge observed that investigation into a non‑cognizable offence required compliance with Section 155(2) CrPC and the procedural safeguards laid down by this Court in Vaggappa Gurulinga Jangaligi. The Court noted earlier authority that a mere endorsement of “permitted” on a police requisition was insufficient and that a Magistrate must apply judicial mind, specify the rank and designation of the officer to investigate, and record a reasoned order before permitting investigation. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Considering the mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, this Court proceed to laid down the following guidelines ... The Jurisdictional Magistrate shall stop hereafter making endorsement as 'permitted' on the police requisition itself. Such an endorsement is not an order in the eyes of law ... Only after his/her subjective satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the police officer to take up the investigation, he/she shall record a finding to that effect permitting the police officer to investigate the non‑cognizable offence." The judge further relied on parity with an earlier order quashing proceedings against the third accused in the same case.

Background

The prosecution alleged that on 6 December 2018 CCB Sub‑Inspector of Ullal Police Station received information that persons were betting on a cricket match at Monthero House, Chembugudde, and, after confirming three persons were involved, filed a requisition with the Magistrate and conducted a raid. Petitioners, accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the charge‑sheet, were apprehended and a charge‑sheet under Sections 78 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act was filed after investigation. The petitioners contended that the Magistrate did not comply with Section 155(2) CrPC when permitting investigation of a non‑cognizable offence and that the requisition bore only an endorsement that permission was “accorded” without a reasoned order specifying the rank and designation of the investigating officer.

The High Court examined this petition in the light of the coordinate Bench decision in Vaggappa Gurulinga Jangaligi, which set out detailed guidelines for Magistrates dealing with requisitions under Section 155(2) and Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice. The judge reproduced the Magistrate’s order which stated: "The requisition received on 06.12.2018 at 2.00 p.m., I have perused the requisition and its enclosures, it reveals that 3 persons are involved in betting on cricket in the Monthero house at Permernuru village, Mangaluru. Hence, permission is accorded." The Court held that such an endorsement did not meet the mandatory requirements and that, on parity with an earlier order dated 31.01.2022 which quashed proceedings against accused No.3 for similar procedural lapse, the petitioners were entitled to the same relief. The High Court therefore allowed the criminal petition, quashed the proceedings against the petitioners in CC No. 2829/2019, and granted liberty to apply for release of any movables seized.

Case Details: Case No.: CRL.P No. 1542 of 2020 (NC: 2026:KHC:13080) Case Title: Alywin Kiran Monthero & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka by Ullal Police Station, Mangalore Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Smt. Pooja Kattimani, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Smt. Asma Kouser, Additional State Public Prosecutor