KIRAN Vs. SECRETARY HOME AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claims to be a Consultant of The Members Recreation Lounge. According to him, he is neither the office bearer nor the member of the said club, but the fifth respondent has registered a case against him and Others in Crime No.94 of 2017, alleging that poker game and wagering were being played by non-members of the said club in violation of the conditions stipulated in the license, causing disturbance to the peace and tranquility of general public and neighbouring shop owners. Hence, the complainant obtained search warrant from the Assistant Commissioner of Police and raided the Members Recreation Lounge on 24.03.2017. During raid, they apprehended accused Nos.1 to 13 and recovered cash of Rs. 15,370/-, 22 mother boards, 44 keys, Two sheets, one long note book etc. On 24.03.2017, the SHO of Basaveshwaranagara Police sought permission of the Court for registration of the case and pursuant to the orders of the Court, registered a case in Crime No.94 of 2017 for the offences punishable under sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the raid, arrest and seizure of the above articles by respondent Nos.4 and 5, the petitioner has filed this writ petition contending that sections 78, 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 ("K.P. Act" for short) applies only to the gaming home and not for recreation club which conducts only game of skill and hence, prima facie interference by respondent Nos.4 and 5 is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the K.P. Act for short. Further it is contended that in view of section 176 of the K.P. Act, the provisions of sections 79 and 80 of the K.P. Act are not applicable to pure game of skill and therefore, registration of the FIR and the consequent investigation conducted by the respondents being contrary to the provisions of law, is liable to be set-aside. It is further contended that the proceedings are initiated against the petitioner in violation of the provisions of section 155 of Cr.P.C., which mandatorily requires the orders of the Magistrate for registration of the case. On these grounds, the petitioner has sought for following reliefs:

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the FIR and the documents produced by the petitioner at Annexures 'A' to 'D'.