ORDER : 1. This is a petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings initiated in C.C. No. 27/2019, against the petitioner, pending on the file of JMFC III-Court, Hubballi, registered for the offence punishable under section 78(6) of Karnataka Police Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent police officer registered a complaint in Gokul Road P.S. Crime No. 171/2017 for the offence punishable under section 78(6) of Karnataka Police Act (hereinafter referred to as K.P. Act for short) and under section 420 read with section 34 of IPC, on 28.12.2017, against the petitioner herein. It is alleged in the complaint that on 28.12.2017 around 9.00 p.m. the complainant police officer received information that the accused is collecting amount on betting in respect of cricket match at Akshay Park. Therefore himself along with his staff and panchas went to the said place and conducted raid at 9.45 p.m. When they conducted raid, the accused tried to escape from the spot, they surrounded and apprehended him. On enquiry he disclosed his name. He also disclosed that he was collecting money for betting with respect to cricket match. He seized a bag, laptop, diary and cash of Rs. 42,000/- and other articles as stated in the panchanama. He took the accused to the police station and thereafter registered his complaint in Crime No. 171/2017. Subsequently the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 78(6) of K.P. Act only and he was not charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. 3. The petitioner has stated that the police had no authority to investigate the matter as the alleged offence under section 420 was not at all made out in the case and the police have not obtained necessary permission under section 155 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is made to face trial without there being any material to proceed against him. Therefore the complaint, FIR and the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner are not sustainable in law and are liable to be quashed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment in the case of Nabisab and Others vs. State of Karnataka, decided by this Court on 7.4.2017 and Crl. Pet. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment in the case of Nabisab and Others vs. State of Karnataka, decided by this Court on 7.4.2017 and Crl. Pet. No. 101121/2017, decided by this Court on 7.6.2017, submitted that only in order to overcome the provisions of section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. the respondent police had initially added section 420 of IPC though there was no complaint and no case was registered prior to conducting raid and therefore registration of the criminal case and filing charge-sheet against the petitioner is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be quashed. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition. 6. It is seen from the record that when the respondent police officer conducted alleged raid, he seized some of the articles from the accused along with cash. No case was registered previously and only after seizure of the said articles and drawing panchanama, he returned to the police station and registered his complaint. However the complainant police officer has mentioned the Crime No. 171/2017 in the spot panchanama which was drawn before registering the case. 7. Though initially the case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 78(6) of K.P. Act and Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner only for offence under Section 78(6) of the Karnataka Police Act. Under these circumstances, judgment in the case of Nabisab and Others vs. State of Karnataka (supra), has to be considered in the case. If the case was registered only for the offence punishable under Sections 78(6) of the K.P. Act, it was mandatory on the part of the police Officer to obtain permission/orders of the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. for investigating the matter and file a final report. In order to avoid and over come the said provision, it appears offence under Section 420 of IPC was included as it is a cognizable offence. This Court considered the facts similar to the case on hand in Nabisab and Others vs. State of Karnataka case and thus has observed in para-24 as follows:- “24. In order to avoid and over come the said provision, it appears offence under Section 420 of IPC was included as it is a cognizable offence. This Court considered the facts similar to the case on hand in Nabisab and Others vs. State of Karnataka case and thus has observed in para-24 as follows:- “24. Perused the above cases apart from registering the offence for the offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, the FIR was also registered for the 49: offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. in 16 such cases. Out of such 16 cases in 5 cases police have completed investigation and filed the charge-sheet, but while filing the charge-sheet it was filed only for the offence under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act and the offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. was dropped in all those five cases. In other 11 cases wherein the case is registered even for the offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. they are at the stage of investigation. It is no doubt true if any one of the offence out of the alleged offences is a cognizable offence then in that case obtaining prior permission from the concerned Magistrate Court as per Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. before proceeding to investigate the matter is not at all necessary. But looking to the above cases for consideration whether really the materials goes to show that there is also the offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. committed by the petitioners/accused. As 5 cases have already been investigated and charge-sheet have been filed in all the 5 cases the offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is dropped. This itself clearly goes to show that the police have 50: registered the case even under Section 420 of the I.P.C. only with an intention to get over the mandatory requirements of Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. and to proceed with the investigation according to their whims and fancies. Even in those 5 cases no public came forward to give the complaint that they have been cheated by any of the petitioners. So the police suo motu registered the case even for the said offence. Therefore, their intention is very clear that it is to abide or overcome of obtaining prior permission from the concerned Magistrate Court.” 8. Even in those 5 cases no public came forward to give the complaint that they have been cheated by any of the petitioners. So the police suo motu registered the case even for the said offence. Therefore, their intention is very clear that it is to abide or overcome of obtaining prior permission from the concerned Magistrate Court.” 8. It is also made out from the record that by the time the police officer conducted raid, cricket match was over and there was no complaint by anybody for the offence under Section 420 of IPC against the petitioner. The same observations are made by this Court in Crl. Pet. No. 101121/2017, decided on 7.6.2017. This Court has observed that the offence under Section 420 of IPC was purposely included in the FIR only in order to overcome the mandatory requirement of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. and that absolutely, there are no material to register the case for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and that the material on record was only for the offence punishable under Section 78(6) of the K.P. Act. Subsequently, in that case also charge-sheet was filed only for the offence punishable under Sections 78(6) of the K.P. Act under such circumstances, this Court observed that proceedings initiated against the petitioner is totally groundless and it amounts to abuse of process of law and consequently, quashed the proceedings. In the case on hand also, neither there was any complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC nor material at the time of registering the case made out in case for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC. Therefore, insertion of the offence under Section 420 of IPC in the FIR was only to overcome mandatory provision of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. It is clear from the fact that the charge-sheet was filed only for the offence punishable under Sections 78(6) of K.P. Act. Therefore, initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of the charge-sheet filed by the respondent police is groundless and it amounts to abuse of process of law and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The criminal petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Therefore, initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of the charge-sheet filed by the respondent police is groundless and it amounts to abuse of process of law and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The criminal petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C. No. 27/2019 pending on the file of III JMFC, Hubballi, for the of fence punishable under Sections 78(6) of Karnataka Police Act are hereby quashed.