- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21224 CRL.P No. 2170 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2170 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MANJUNATH G. S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT # 561, 8TH MAIN ROAD 4TH CROSS, ATTUR LAYOUT BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE-560 064. 2. B. NANDISH S/O N. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT # 570, 9TH MAIN ROAD BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE-560 064. 3. MANJESH S. S/O SANTHRAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT # 514, 3RD MAIN ROAD 4TH CROSS, ATTUR LAYOUT BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE-560 064. 4. MANJUNATHA K.C. S/O CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT # 17/3, SANTOSH NAGAR ATTUR LAYOUT, YELAHANKA BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE-560 064. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21224 CRL.P No. 2170 of 2025 5. SHARAFUDHEEN M. C/O MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.102, BLOCK ES. DODDABALLAPUR ROAD PROVIDENT WELWORTH CITY MARASANDRA BANGALORE RURAL-561 203. 6. HARISH N. S/O NARAYANAPPA A. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT # 122, 9TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS NEAR MPTHER DAIRY ATTUR LAYOUT YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BANGALORE-560 064. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION BANGALORE REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 01. 2. BHARATH M.M. FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS POLICE INSPECTOR CCB SPECIAL ENQUIRY SQUAD N.T. PETE BANGALORE CITY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGESHWARAPPA K., HCGP FOR R1; R2 - NOTICE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21224 CRL.P No. 2170 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.38787 OF 2022 OF RESPONDENT POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT-1 MAYOHALL, BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 79 AND 80 OF KARNATATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners seek the following relief: "Wherefore, it is prayed that, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.38787/2022 of respondent police pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic court - 1 Mayohall Bangalore City, for the alleged offence punishable under sections 79, 80 Karnataka Police Act 1963, in the interest of justice." 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Respondent 2 has been served with notice but has chosen to remain unrepresented, and perused the materials on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21224 CRL.P No. 2170 of 2025 3. Perusal of the material on record would indicate that as per the impugned complaint registered as F.I.R., in Crime No.154/2022 dated 28.09.2022 as well as seizure panchanama of even date, petitioners were said to be playing the game andar bahar in a public place, which was a hotel room, thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 79 & 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short 'K.P. Act') which is a non-cognizable offence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the game of andar bahar even if played in a public street or public place cannot be construed or treated as a game of chance but the same is a game of skill as held by the various judgments of this Court including the recent judgment in the case of "N.G.Srinivasa and other Vs. State of Karnataka and another" in Crl.P.No.1950/2024 dated 11.07.2024. It is therefore submitted that so long as the impugned proceedings arising out of alleged offences under Sections 79 & 80 of the K.P. Act relates the alleged game andar bahar being a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21224 CRL.P No. 2170 of 2025 game of skill and not a game of chance, the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed in terms of the aforesaid judgment. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.1- police would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. In N.G.Srinivasa's case supra this Court referred to the various judgments of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and come to the conclusion that game andar bahar is a game of skill and not game of chance and consequently quashed the proceedings by holding as under:- "The petitioners are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.119/2023, the order dated 04.01.2024 and the proceedings in C.C.No.10/2024, pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Holalkere, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21224 CRL.P No. 2170 of 2025 2. Heard Sri Kalyan R., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Thejesh, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgments rendered by the co- ordinate benches of this Court in Crl.P.No.100877/2014, disposed on 13.06.2014, which read as follows: "5. On analysing the above said provision of law, this Court has rendered a decision reported in 1971(2) Mys. L.J. 187 in the case of Chickarangappa & Others Vs. State of Mysore and another decision reported in 1977 (1) K.L.J. 274 in the case of Eranna Vs. State of Karnataka, which decisions declare that, “playing ‘Andar Bahar’ is a game of skill and not mere a game of chance and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 79 and 80 of the Act are not attracted”. 6. In the ruling reported in 1977 (1) K.L.J. 274 (supra), this Court has categorically held that, game of ‘Andar Bahar’ is not a game of chance. The facts are also little bit relevant as quoted in the said case. At paragraph 7 of the said judgment, it is stated that; “In this view of the matter, the essential ingredient of the offence was not proved. It could not be established that the petitioner – accused were playing a game of chance and one does not know how the game ‘Andar Bahar’ is actually played with the assistance of cards. Even if any betting was resorted to and even if any pledge of moveables was made in support of that betting, that by itself did not convert a game of a skill into a game of chance. At any rate it was not categorically proved that ‘Andar Bahar’ is a game of chance - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21224 CRL.P No. 2170 of 2025 and that these accused were playing that game. They were not covered under the definition of gaming in a common house. Since the institution where the accused were found playing the game with cards is a club, it is not unusual that cards are played in a club, and it may even be that some betting was also being done. These facts by themselves never proved that a game of chance was being played or that no skill was involved in that game so that it could be considered to be a mere game of chance. It is manifest that a game of skill would not be held to be gambling for the purpose of the Act. In this view of the matter, no offence under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 was made out against the petitioners. Hence the conviction of sentence was set aside”. and in criminal revision petition No.100031/2014, disposed on 03.03.2015, it is held as follows: "This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. by the State, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate in releasing the interim custody of the cash amount in favour of accused No.2/respondent No.2. 2. Succinctly stated, the P.S.I. of Honnavar Police Station charge sheeted the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 87 of K.P. Act. The accused were on bail. During the raid the Investigating Officer had seized cash of Rs.34,468/-, which is alleged to be the gaming money. Respondent No.2 moved an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of the said amount. The application was contested by the prosecution. The court below allowed the application and released the interim custody of cash amount in favour of the applicant / respondent No.2 on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21224 CRL.P No. 2170 of 2025 executing an indemnity bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum. However, care was taken by the court below by directing accused No.1 to assist the C.M.O. of the Court to take the photographs of the currency notes at his cost. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner – State submits that the trial Court has lost sight of the fact that the amount was seized while the accused were indulged in playing Andar Bahar. In the event prosecution successfully proves its case, said money is liable to be confiscated to the State Government. The court had acted on the fabricated documents produced by the accused No.2 projecting that the money belong to Srikumar Roadlines, under whom he was employed. Though the prosecution had disputed the said document without probing about the veracity of the document, the trial Court has hurriedly released the interim custody of the cash amount. In fact the said cash amount is required to be marked in evidence during the trial. The currency notes are not perishable in nature and there was no dire necessity to release the interim custody of the cash amount in favour of second applicant. The accused No.5 has pleaded guilty and was imposed fine, that strengthens the case of prosecution. In the judgment of this Court reported in 1993 CRL.L.J. 3109 in the case of T. Narayanaswamy vs. State and Others, it has been held that release of money seized for the interim custody is bad in law. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. In reply, Sri Anoop G. Deshpande, learned counsel for R1 to R4 and R6 to R7 submits that the impugned order being in the nature of interlocutory order is not amenable to the revision jurisdiction. Hence, the very - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21224 CRL.P No. 2170 of 2025 petition itself is not maintainable. In fact, the money seized was not the gaming money, but it belongs to his employer Srikumar Roadlines and the court below having satisfied about his contention was pleased to release the interim custody to his possession. However, the interest of State is protected by directing him to execute the indemnity bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum. Even the interest of the prosecution about the identification of the currency notes is also taken care by directing him to assist the C.M.O. of the Court at his cost in taking photographs of the currency notes. 5. Respondent No.5 is served and not represented. 6. As regards the first contention about the maintainability of the revision petition, by a catena of judicial pronouncements of this Court and other High Courts, it is held that the release of interim custody of the seized property is the nature of adjudication of the rights of the parties in reference to the said property. The said order is amenable for revision jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Hence, there is no merit in the contention that this petition is not maintainable. 7. As regards the merit of the impugned order is concerned, the court below being convinced with a certificate produced by the second applicant issued by his employer Srikumar Roadlines and also daily enquiry report dated 14.11.2012 has inferred that he is an employee of the said Roadlines. Keeping open the question of the ownership of the seized property / cash amount in question the court below has ordered interim custody by taking the photographs of currency notes and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21224 CRL.P No. 2170 of 2025 also by calling upon the applicant to execute theindemnity bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum. 8. Under the circumstances, I hold that the impugned has not prejudiced the case of the State and it is not illegal. The grounds urged by the State lacks merits and does not call for interference of this Court. Accordingly, petition is rejected". In the light of the afore-extracted judgments rendered by the co-ordinate benches of this Court and in the facts obtaining in the case at hand, which covers the issue on all its fours, I deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings, qua the petitioner. 4. For the reasons aforementioned, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The crime in Crime No.119/2023, the order dated 04.01.2024 and the proceedings in C.C.No.10/2024, pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Holalkere, stand quashed." 7. In the instant case, material on record comprising of complaint, F.I.R., seizure mahazar etc., would indicate that petitioners were allegedly playing the game of andar bahar which is a game of skill and not a game of chance as held in the aforesaid judgment referred - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21224 CRL.P No. 2170 of 2025 supra and consequently the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) Petition is hereby allowed. ii) Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.38787/2022 pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court – 1, Mayohall, Bengaluru City arising out of F.I.R. in Crime No.154/2022 filed by Respondent No.1 – Police is hereby quashed qua the petitioners. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42