- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10051 CRL.P No. 2977 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2977 OF 2025 BETWEEN: ZABIULLA KHAN S/O. NAZEER AHMED KHAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.89, 3RD CROSS, TELECOM LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.P.SOMASHEKHARAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, CHANDRALAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 040. 2. SRI MAHADEVA SWAMY S. S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE ACCUSED POLICE INSPECTOR, CITY CRIME BRANCH, BENGALURU-560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B., HCGP FOR R-1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGESHEET IN C.C.NO.1109/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 79 OF THE K.P. ACT, 1963, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10051 CRL.P No. 2977 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner, accused No.10, who is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, has approached this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that, upon receiving credible information, the complainant and his staff conducted a raid on a residential property belonging to the daughter of the petitioner (accused No.10). Upon inspection, it was found that the accused present at the property were engaged in playing Andhar Bahaar while placing bets. The only allegation against the petitioner (accused No.10) is that he had leased the property to accused No.2 for the purpose of gambling. 3. The learned Magistrate, after accepting the charge sheet, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences. Aggrieved by this, accused No.10 has approached this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (accused No.10) and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10051 CRL.P No. 2977 of 2025 5. Admittedly, the raid was conducted on a residential property where the petitioner and accused Nos.1 to 9 were found playing Andhar Bahaar while placing bets. Except for the allegation that the petitioner (accused No.10) had leased the residential property belonging to his daughter, there is no substantive evidence to establish that the property was leased for the purpose of gambling, thereby falling under the definition of a “common gaming house” as defined under Section 2(3) of the Karnataka Police Act. 6. The issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sri K.N. Suresh v. State of Karnataka & Another, reported in ILR 2012 KAR 1443, wherein, at paragraphs 5 and 6, it was held as follows: “5. The case of the prosecution is that the game was played inside the house bearing No. 552, First Floor, 5th Cross, 8th Main, Indiranagar, Bangalore, and the said premises cannot be considered a ‘common gaming house.’ The definition of ‘common gaming house’ as per Section 2(3) of the Karnataka Police Act is as follows: ”‘Common gaming house’ means a building, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel, or place in which any instruments of gaming are kept or used for the profit or gain of the person owning, occupying, or keeping such building, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel, or place, or of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10051 CRL.P No. 2977 of 2025 person using such premises, whether or not they have a right to use the same—such profit or gain being either by way of a charge for the use of the instruments of gaming or of the premises, or otherwise by way of subscription or other payment for the use of facilities along with the instruments of gaming or the premises for gaming purposes.” “6. It is evident that there is no complaint against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the registration of the case by the police amounts to a sheer abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the police are required to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings in Crime No.411/2011 are hereby quashed. It is needless to state that the property seized in the case must be returned to the person from whom it was seized. Therefore, the police are directed to return the property to the person from whom it was seized.” 7. In the present case, the accused were playing Andhar Bahaar inside a house belonging to the daughter of the petitioner (accused No.10), which does not fall within the definition of a “common gaming house” as per Section 2(3) of the Karnataka Police Act. 8. The accused were not playing Andhar Bahaar in a common gaming house or in a public place to constitute an offence under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10051 CRL.P No. 2977 of 2025 9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.1109/2023, pending before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar as they relate to accused No.10, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69