- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35514 CRL.P No. 10424 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10424 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. ALLU @ ALKURAIAH S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS, R/O BANASHANKARI EXTENSION, PAVAGADA TOWN, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561 202. 2. LOKESHNAIK @ LOKI S/O NARAYANANAIAK AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O JAJURAYANAHALLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561 202. 3. SRINIVASA @ SEENA @ GONNE SEENA S/O ANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O BANASHANKARI EXTENSION, PAVAGADA TOWN, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561 202. 4. SUBRAMANI @ FINANCE MANI @ SUBRAMANI @ FINANCE MANI Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35514 CRL.P No. 10424 of 2024 S/O NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O OLD KUMBARA STREET, PAVAGADA TOWN, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561 202. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.B. UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PAVAGADA POLICE STATION, MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561 202 (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 003) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.3082/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C PAVAGADA TUMKUR (CR.NO.90/2021) OF PAVAGADA P.S. MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION TUMKUR DISTRICT CHARGE SHEETED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 87 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35514 CRL.P No. 10424 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for respondents. 2. The gist of the prosecution’s allegation is that the petitioners were found engaged in playing the game of andar-bahar near Hulibetta Tanda, pursuant to which a criminal case came to be registered. The Investigating Officer, being of the view that the petitioners had committed an offence, proceeded to lay a charge sheet in C.C. No. 3082/2021. 3. The issue as to whether a citizen found playing a game of chance, namely andar-bahar, constitutes an offence has already been considered and decided by a Co- ordinate Bench in W.P. No. 2227/2024. It is apposite for this Court to reproduce paragraph 3 of the said judgment, which in turn refers to an earlier judgment rendered in Crl.P. No. 100877/2014, and reads as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35514 CRL.P No. 10424 of 2024 "The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate bench 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 and that these accused were playing that game. They were not covered under the definition of gaming in a house. Since the institution where the accused were found playing the game with cards is a club, it is not unusual that cards are - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35514 CRL.P No. 10424 of 2024 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". (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the afore-extracted judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench 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 petitioners." 4. In light of the categorical findings recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench, wherein it has been held that participation in a game of chance, such as andar-bahar, does not constitute an offence under any provision of law, much less under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, the very foundation of the prosecution in C.C.No.3082/2021 stands vitiated. Once the alleged act itself does not fall within the ambit of the penal provisions - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35514 CRL.P No. 10424 of 2024 invoked, the continuation of the proceedings would serve no legal purpose. On the contrary, allowing such proceedings to linger would not only amount to an abuse of the process of law but would also result in unnecessary harassment of the petitioners and cause a miscarriage of justice. 5. Having regard to the binding precedent laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench and keeping in view the fact that the ingredients of the alleged offences are wholly absent, the possibility of securing a conviction in the present case is remote and bleak. In these circumstances, this Court finds it a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to interdict the proceedings at the threshold, thereby preventing the misuse of judicial process and safeguarding the ends of justice. 6. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35514 CRL.P No. 10424 of 2024 ORDER (i) The criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings pending in C.C.No.3082/2021 pending before the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada, Tumkur, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT: BHK