Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings for Non-Compliance with Section 155(2) CrPC in Gambling

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 09.10.2026

Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings for Non-Compliance with Section 155(2) CrPC in Gambling

The Karnataka High Court, in Vachan G Shetty & Others v. State of Karnataka & Another, has quashed criminal proceedings arising from a police case registered under Section 79 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, after finding that the investigating officer had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty held that where the alleged offence is non-cognizable, compliance with Section 155(2) CrPC is necessary before the police proceed with the investigation. In the present case, the Trial Court’s order sheet disclosed that no order had been passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate as required under the provision.

Consequently, the High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings against all 23 petitioners.

The decision highlights the importance of statutory safeguards governing police investigations into non-cognizable offences and reinforces the principle that investigative action must be supported by the authority prescribed under law.

Background and Facts of the Case

• The dispute arose from Crime No. 33/2022 registered at Belthangadi Police Station in Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka.
• The police registered the case in connection with an alleged offence punishable under Section 79 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
• Following the police proceedings, the matter came to be registered as C.C. No. 1600/2022 before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Belthangadi, Dakshina Kannada.
• Twenty-three accused persons, led by Vachan G Shetty, approached the Karnataka High Court by filing Criminal Petition No. 5379 of 2023 under Section 482 CrPC.
• The petitioners sought quashing of the criminal proceedings on the ground that the police had not complied with Section 155(2) CrPC.
• Their principal contention was that the offence under Section 79 of the Karnataka Police Act was non-cognizable and that the investigating officer had proceeded without obtaining the requisite order from the jurisdictional Magistrate.
• The High Court was therefore called upon to examine whether the criminal proceedings could continue despite the absence of compliance with the statutory requirement.

Statutory Provisions Considered

Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 155(2) CrPC provides:

• “No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.”
• The provision establishes a statutory restriction on police investigation of non-cognizable offences.
• Unlike cognizable offences, where the police ordinarily possess authority to investigate without first obtaining a Magistrate’s order, non-cognizable offences require compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 155.
• The Magistrate’s order serves as a statutory safeguard against investigations commenced without the requisite legal authority.

Section 482 CrPC — Inherent Powers of the High Court

• Section 482 CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders necessary to give effect to orders under the Code, prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise secure the ends of justice.
• In the present case, the petitioners invoked this provision to challenge the continuation of proceedings arising from an investigation allegedly undertaken without the required Magistrate’s order.

Section 79 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963

• The criminal proceedings arose from an alleged offence punishable under Section 79 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, a provision concerning unlawful gaming-related conduct.
• The High Court expressly recorded that the offence under Section 79 was undisputedly non-cognizable.
• This classification was central to the decision because it attracted the requirements of Section 155(2) CrPC.

Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963

• The introductory portion of the petition referred to offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act.
• However, the operative reasoning and final order of the High Court specifically addressed the offence punishable under Section 79.
• Accordingly, the decision should not be read as containing a separate adjudication on the ingredients or applicability of Section 80.

Arguments Advanced by the Petitioners

• The petitioners, represented by Advocate Sri Rakshith Kumar, challenged the criminal proceedings on the ground of non-compliance with Section 155(2) CrPC.

Their submissions focused on the following issue:

The investigating officer had not obtained the requisite order from the jurisdictional Magistrate before proceeding in a case involving a non-cognizable offence.

• The petitioners contended that this failure rendered the proceedings legally unsustainable.
• They therefore requested the High Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and quash C.C. No. 1600/2022.
• The Court’s order records the petitioners’ argument in concise terms and does not reproduce any additional substantive grounds challenging the alleged offence on its merits.

Submissions of the State Government

• The State of Karnataka was represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri Rahul Rai K.
• The State opposed the petition.
• However, the Government Pleader did not dispute the petitioners’ submission concerning non-compliance with Section 155(2) CrPC.
• This aspect became significant because the controversy was principally concerned with the legality of the investigative procedure rather than an evaluation of the evidence relating to the alleged offence.

Findings of the Karnataka High Court

• After considering the submissions and examining the Trial Court’s order sheet, the High Court found that the statutory requirements had not been complied with.

1. Offence under Section 79 was non-cognizable

• The Court recorded that the FIR had been registered for an offence punishable under Section 79 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
• It further observed that the offence was undisputedly non-cognizable.
• Accordingly, compliance with Section 155(2) CrPC was necessary.

2. No order of the jurisdictional Magistrate

• The Court examined the Trial Court’s order sheet and found that the investigating officer had not complied with Section 155(2).
• In particular, no order had been passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate as contemplated under that provision before registration of the FIR.
• The absence of such an order was the decisive procedural defect identified by the Court.

3. Criminal proceedings could not be sustained

• Having established the non-cognizable nature of the offence and the absence of the required Magistrate’s order, the Court concluded that the impugned proceedings could not be sustained.
• The Court did not undertake an assessment of whether the petitioners had actually committed the alleged offence.
• Instead, the proceedings were quashed because of the failure to comply with the statutory procedure governing investigation.

Final Order of the High Court

• The Karnataka High Court allowed Criminal Petition No. 5379 of 2023.
• It quashed the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 1600/2022 pending before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangadi, Dakshina Kannada, arising from Crime No. 33/2022 registered by Belthangadi Police Station.
• The relief was granted in respect of the petitioners before the High Court.
• The Court’s operative finding was that the criminal proceedings could not be sustained because the investigating officer had not complied with Section 155(2) CrPC.

Legal Principles Emerging from the Judgment

A. Police investigation must comply with statutory restrictions

• The judgment reiterates that the power of police authorities to investigate is governed by the applicable procedural law.
• Where an offence is non-cognizable, the investigating officer cannot disregard the requirement of obtaining an order from the competent Magistrate.

B. Magistrate’s authorisation is an important procedural safeguard

• Section 155(2) CrPC establishes a distinction between investigations into cognizable and non-cognizable offences.
• The requirement of a Magistrate’s order is not merely an administrative formality.
• It is a statutory condition regulating the exercise of investigative authority in non-cognizable cases.

C. Trial Court records can establish procedural non-compliance

• The High Court relied upon the Trial Court’s order sheet to determine whether the requisite Magistrate’s order had been passed.
• This demonstrates the importance of examining the procedural record when challenging the legality of an investigation.

D. Inherent jurisdiction may be exercised where proceedings are legally unsustainable

• The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings arising from the identified statutory violation.
• The decision illustrates the availability of inherent jurisdiction in an appropriate case where the continuation of criminal proceedings cannot be sustained under the governing procedural framework.

E. The ruling concerns procedural legality, not the merits of the allegations

• The High Court did not decide whether the accused were factually innocent or whether the allegations were otherwise proved.
• Its decision rested upon the absence of the required Magistrate’s order.
• This distinction is important when assessing the scope and precedential value of the judgment.

Significance for Criminal Investigations and Defence Proceedings

• The judgment is relevant to cases involving offences classified as non-cognizable under the applicable statutory framework.
• For investigating agencies, it underscores the need to verify the nature of the alleged offence and obtain the necessary Magistrate’s order before undertaking an investigation requiring such authorisation.
• For accused persons and defence counsel, the ruling demonstrates the importance of examining the procedural foundation of the criminal case.

The following records may be particularly relevant:

1. The initial police complaint or information.
2. The FIR and the offences invoked.
3. The classification of the alleged offences as cognizable or non-cognizable.
4. Any application submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate.
5. The Magistrate’s order, if any.
6. The Trial Court’s order sheet.
7. The investigation and subsequent prosecution records.

However, the effect of any procedural irregularity must be assessed with reference to the facts, the offences involved and the applicable law.

The present judgment should not be interpreted as establishing that every procedural defect in every criminal investigation automatically requires quashing.

Applicability Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

• The present petition was decided with reference to Section 155(2) and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the corresponding provisions are Section 174(2), dealing with investigation of non-cognizable cases, and Section 528, concerning the inherent powers of the High Court.
• The underlying distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences continues to be relevant under the newer procedural framework.
• Nevertheless, the judgment itself applies the CrPC provisions relevant to the proceedings before the Court.
• The applicability of the BNSS to any particular investigation or pending proceeding must be determined independently, having regard to the statutory commencement and savings provisions.

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court’s decision in Vachan G Shetty & Others v. State of Karnataka & Another reinforces the importance of compliance with Section 155(2) CrPC in criminal investigations involving non-cognizable offences.

The Court found that the offence under Section 79 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 was non-cognizable and that the investigating officer had proceeded without the requisite order of the jurisdictional Magistrate.

On that basis, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

The judgment serves as a reminder that criminal investigations must conform to the procedure established by law and that procedural safeguards governing investigative authority cannot be overlooked. For criminal law practitioners, the decision provides a useful illustration of how the absence of a required Magistrate’s order may affect the sustainability of proceedings arising from a non-cognizable offence.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com