- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18974 CRL.P No. 2013 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2013 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. MR. PARASURAMA, S/O MR KUNNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O MURUGU VILLAGE AND POST, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE – 571 124. 2. MR. RAFIQ @ RAFI S/O MR BASHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O NO.9, 5TH CROSS, NEW GUDDANAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 059 3. MR. NISAJ S/O MR. JAINUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O NO.2, 3RD CROSS, NEW GURAPPANAPALYA BENGALURU – 560 029 4. MR. FAYAZ KHAN S/O MR. AMEER KHAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O NO. 26, 5TH CROSS, NEW GUDDADAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 059 5. MR. SRIKANTA MURTHY S/O MR NINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18974 CRL.P No. 2013 of 2025 R/O NO. 548, 1ST CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, ATTIBELE, BENGALURU – 562 107 6. MR. NANDISH, S/O MR NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O NO.20, 10TH CROSS, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NAYANDAHALLI, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 039 7. MR. PALAKSHA S/O MR NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O NO.150, HSBC LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVAI, BENGALURU – 560 072 8. MR JAYAPRAKASH, S/O MR. NARAYANA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O NO.229, 11TH MAIN, C BLOCK, BENGALURU CITY – 560 091 9. MR. TANGAMANI, S/O MR CHINNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O NEAR ARCH, BAYYANNA GARDEN, BENGALURU – 560 027 10. MR. SATYARAJU, S/O MR RAJARAM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O OPP. SBI, BENGALURU – 560 027 11. MR ARUN S/O MR MURUGAMMAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O NO.4185, 10TH MAIN ROAD, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18974 CRL.P No. 2013 of 2025 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 010 12. MR. YASHAWANTHA S/O MR. SATYAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O NO.35/5, AVALAHALLI GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 085 13. MR. RANJU, S/O MR. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O NO.33, 10TH CROSS 10TH MAIN, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 050 14. MR GIRISHA, S/O MR SHIVARAM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O NO.75, 9TH CROSS, LAKSHMANANAGAR, SUNKADAKATTE BENGALURU – 577 217 15. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OWNER OF ANNAMMA RECREATION ASSOCIATION CLUB, S C ROAD SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 020 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATOIN REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18974 CRL.P No. 2013 of 2025 2. SANJEEVA GOWDA H.B., S/O BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU – 560 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING NO.117/2019 ALONG WITH THE INFORMATION DATED 26.11.2019 REGISTERED WITH THE RESPONDENT NO.1 SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION WHEREIN THE PETITIONERS HEREIN ARE ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 79 AND 80 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT (ANNEXED VIDE ANNEXURES – A AND A1) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER Learned HCGP accepts notice for the respondents. 2. In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs: “a. Quash the FIR bearing No.117/2019 along with the information dated 26.11.2019 registered with the respondent No.1 Sheshadripuram Police Station wherein the petitioners herein are arraigned as accused for the alleged offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act. (Annexed vide Annexures-A and A1) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18974 CRL.P No. 2013 of 2025 b. Quash the proceedings in matter bearing FIR No.117/2019 now currently re-numbered as CC No.10847/2024 pending on the file of Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate First Class (Traffic Court-II) Mayohall, Bengaluru wherein the petitioners herein are arraigned as accused for the alleged offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act (Annexure-B); c. Pass any order/s as deems fit to this Hon’ble Court in interest of justice.” 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate on 26.11.2019, respondent No.2 conducted a raid of a Recreation Association Club, in which the petitioners were playing 'Gambling' and registered FIR in Cr.No.117/2017, which is presently pending in C.C.No.10847/2024 before the Trial Court, which is assailed in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, in order to point out that apart from the fact that the Trial Court passed the impugned order dated 17.05.2024 taking cognizance without assigning any reason and by passing a cryptic, laconic and unreasoned order without any application of mind, the game, which was allegedly played by the petitioners was stated as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18974 CRL.P No. 2013 of 2025 gambling, but has not been specified as to whether such gambling could be classified as Game of Chance and hence, the petitioners could not be incriminated for the aforesaid offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act as held by this Court in Hasan Raj v/s. The State of Karnataka in Crl.P. No. 8395 of 2017 dated 06.06.2018. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the instant case, the material on record discloses that the petitioners, who were playing 'Gambling' and nothing has been stated in the said compliant as to whether the said game is a game of chance or game of skill and as to how it amounts to offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act. 7. In Hasan Raj’s case supra, this Court has held as under: 2. The petition is filed seeking quashing of registration of FIR in Crime No. 197/2017 and further investigation thereon. The records disclose that, the Sub-Inspector of Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru, has registered a case in NCR No.133/2017 for the offences punishable - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18974 CRL.P No. 2013 of 2025 under Sections 79 & 80 of the Karnataka Police Act ( for short, ‘K.P. Act’) and after obtaining permission from the Magistrate, he started investigation for the above said offences. The records also disclose that, the said permission appears to have been granted. Even considering that the permission being granted by the Magistrate, it appears it is after the Police Officer receiving credible information with regard to the above said offences and going to the spot and after conducting investigation to some extent, thereafter permission was obtained. The learned Magistrate has simply granted permission by mentioning a single word ‘Permitted’. There is no application of mind to the contents of the complaint or to the report submitted by the Police Officer and no satisfaction of the Magistrate is recorded before permitting for investigation. Even the learned Magistrate has not mentioned the time at which permission has been taken and as to whether it is before or after starting-up of investigation. 3. At this stage, it is worth to mention here the observation made by this court in Crl.P 3082/2007dated 22.10.2008 at Para-9, which reads as under:- “Even otherwise a perusal of the order of the Judge, which is in manuscript written over the representation by the Sub- Inspector of Police, does not disclose application of mind. As noticed supra, the JMFC ought to have applied his mind to the facts, satisfied himself as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that anon-cognizable - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18974 CRL.P No. 2013 of 2025 offence is committed and having not done so, the act is both, arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, it goes without saying that before permitting for investigation, the Magistrate has to go through the contents of the report submitted by the Police Officer and record his satisfaction with regard to the grounds to believe that non- cognizable offence is committed and it requires investigation by the police and thereafter, he has to permit the police to investigate the matter. Such things are not there, so far as this case is concerned, except mentioning in a word ‘Permitted”. It appears that the Magistrate has not applied his judicious mind before passing such an order. 4. One more thing required to be considered by this court is that, the Police Officer has stated in the complaint that, on 12.09.2017, one Mr. Prakash, the Police Officer (Special Investigation Team) has appeared before the Sub- Inspector of Police, Cubbon Park, Bengaluru, and stated that he has visited the Nota Royal Arcade No.158, Shop No.11 and 12, Ground Floor, Puradamma Recreation Associates which are the video game shops and he found that some people are playing Video Games with the help of machines. Except stating that, nothing has been stated in the said complaint as to whether the said game is a game of chance or a Game of skill and as to how it amounts to offence under Sections 79 & 80 of the K.P Act. Therefore, there is absolute no information with regard to the game being played as to whether it is a game of chance only or any skill is required. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18974 CRL.P No. 2013 of 2025 5. In the above circumstances, there are serious lacunas in registration of case and investigation in connection of the said case concerned. Therefore, in my opinion, if such investigation ordered to be continued, it would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed. However, the Jurisdictional Police are at liberty to follow the procedure under Section 155(2) of Cr.PC. properly and re-investigate the matter, if need arises, in accordance with law. With the above observation, the petition is disposed of. 8. As held by this Court in the aforesaid judgments, in the event of a person participates / plays a 'Game of Skill', he cannot be said to have committed offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, which are applicable only to 'Game of Chance' and not to 'Game of Skill'. 9. In the instant case, the material on record discloses that the respondents have not ascertained as to whether the petitioners were playing a 'Game of Skill' or a 'Game of Chance' at the time of raid and hence, the petitioners cannot be said to have committed the aforesaid offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, which only relates to 'Game of chance'. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18974 CRL.P No. 2013 of 2025 10. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings, qua the petitioners, deserve to be quashed. 11. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.10847/2024 arising out of FIR in Crime No.117/2019 registered by the 1st respondent – Police, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Traffic Court-I), Mayohall, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79