- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1916 CRL.P No. 10703 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10703 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. RAVISHANKAR S/O SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O NO. #44/5TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN KALIDASA LAYOUT SRINAGAR BANASHANKARI BENGALURU-560 050. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH B.Y, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION CHICKPET SUB-DIVISON, BENGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU 2. DR. B.S SUDHAKAR POLICE INSPECTOR, CCB SPECIAL ENQUIRY WING BENGALURU-560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 IN CC NO.2251/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE JMFC, (TRAFFIC COURT-IV) AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 79 AND 80 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT (AMENDMENT) ACT 2021, AS PER ANN- G. Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1916 CRL.P No. 10703 of 2024 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, petitioner seeks the following relief: "a. Quash the impugned proceedings as against the petitioner/accused No.4 in C.C.No.2251/2024 pending before the Hon'ble JMFC & (Traffic Court- IV), at Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act 2021 as per Annexure-G. b. Pass such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deem it fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. " 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. SPP for respondents and perused the materials on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that as per the impugned complaint registered as F.I.R., in Crime No.213/2023 dated 18.10.2023, petitioner-accused No.4 along with others were said to be playing the game andar bahar thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short 'K.P.Act') which is a non- cognizable offence. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1916 CRL.P No. 10703 of 2024 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 judgment 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 offence under Sections 79 and 80 of the K.P.Act relates the alleged game andar bahar being a game of skill and not a game of chance, the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed in terms of the aforesaid judgment. It is also submitted that the said offences being non cognizable offences, in the absence of necessary permission being obtained under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, the impugned proceedings are not maintainable as held by this Court in the case of Rajaram and Ors. Vs. The State passed in Crl.P.No.200031/2023 dated 01.02.2023 (Kalaburagi Bench). 5. Per contra, learned Addl.SPP for the respondents would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1916 CRL.P No. 10703 of 2024 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. 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; - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1916 CRL.P No. 10703 of 2024 “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 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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1916 CRL.P No. 10703 of 2024 the application and released the interim custody of cash amount in favour of the applicant / respondent No.2 on 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 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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1916 CRL.P No. 10703 of 2024 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 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: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1916 CRL.P No. 10703 of 2024 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 supra and consequently the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed. 8. In Rajaram’s case supra, this Court has held as under: "Heard Sri Prashant S. Kumman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Maya T.R., learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer :- “WHEREFORE, the petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased exercise inherent powers U/Sec 482 of Cr.P.C, examine the FIR, Complaint and records and quash the FIR in Crime No.213/2021 (University Police Station, Kalaburagi) and the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.15147/2022 on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Kalaburagi for the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1916 CRL.P No. 10703 of 2024 offence punishable U/sec. 79 & 80 of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act 2021, as against these petitioners, to meet the ends of justice.” 3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the petition are as under:- A complaint came to be lodged by Wajeed Patel, Police Inspector, CCB Division, Kalaburagi with University Police Station on 14.11.2021. 4. Gist of the complaint averments reveal that when the complainant received a credible information, that some people are playing Andar Bahar with the cards in Ashirwad Lodge situated at Kalaburagi, he raided the said lodge and seized a total sum of Rs.30.300/- cash which was kept for gambling and also seized some mobile telephones and lodged the complaint. 5. Based on the said complaint, without following the required procedure as contemplated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. the University police registered a case in Crime No.213/2021 dated 14.11.2021. The police after investigation filed the chargesheet. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought for quashing of the chargesheet in respect of the crime No.213/2021 on following grounds: • That, the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences as against them - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1916 CRL.P No. 10703 of 2024 and they have been falsely involved in the above case. • That, the petitioners are falsely involved by the respondent in the above case, there no evidence at all of the involvement of the petitioners in the above case, hence the registration of case against these petitioners is bad in law. • That, it is pertinent to mention that the panchanama and raid is conducted between 4:45 pm to 6:30 pm on 14-11- 2021 but the FIR is received on 15-11- 2021 at 06:30 am which clearly indicates that the raid and panchanama was conducted without the prior permission. • That, in the above case the police have first conducted the panchanama and then registered the case which is against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lalita Kumari's case. • That, Section 79 & 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 are non-cognizable offences and the police cannot investigate the subject matter without permission of the jurisdictional - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:1916 CRL.P No. 10703 of 2024 Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and no permission was sought in the above case. • That, the case initiated after conducting panchanama and subsequent registration or the case is bad in law. • That, though the persons were playing Andar Bahar, for that reason it cannot be called as common gaming house. When no complaint is lodges by anybody that the said house has been converted into a common gaming house at any point of time. Merely on the ground as an isolated circumstances, if some persons or the inmates of the house were playing Andar Bahar, it cannot be at any stretch of imagination the said house can be called as 'Common gaming house'. • That, the case reported in Eranna and others V/s State or Karnataka (1977 [1] Kar. L.J. 274, the Hon'ble Court observed in the said case also that Unless the prosecution proved how the game of Andar Bahar is played and in - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:1916 CRL.P No. 10703 of 2024 what manner bettings are recorded, it could not be inferred that it was a pure and simple game of skill and not a game of chance". • That, the game of Andar Bahar is not a game of chance but it is a game of skill, it does not amount to gambling and as such, proceedings U/Sec 79 & 80 of the Karnataka Police Act cannot be initiated. • That, on bare perusal of the FIR and Complaint, there is no prima-facie material as against these petitioners for the provisions under Karnataka Police Act, hence the initiation of the case against these petitioners are malicious, illegal and is unsustainable in law. • That, in view of the aforesaid facts and grounds, these petitioners have approaches this Hon'ble Court challenging the registration of FIR and Complaint. • That, the petitioners have not filed any other petition seeking the same relief as sought in this petition, nor any other petition is pending. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:1916 CRL.P No. 10703 of 2024 • That, the petitioners craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to urge any other points that may be available at the time of arguments. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that this Court has consistently taken a view that such things are impermissible in law, in view of the settled principle of law in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2020 KAR 630 and in the case of Eraiah and Others vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1977 (1) KAR.L.J. 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition prayer on the ground that the procedural irregularities is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and the same does not vitiate the very registration of the case and sought for dismissal of the petition. 9. This Court perused the material on record in the light of the arguments put forth by the parties. 10. Admittedly, from the material available on record, the contents of the complaint show that accused petitioners were indulged in playing ‘andar-bahar’ game. Admittedly, the said offence is a non-cognizable offence and registration of such cases require procedure to be - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:1916 CRL.P No. 10703 of 2024 followed as is found in the cases of Vaggeppa and Eraiah referred to supra. But materials on record disclose that such procedure is not followed before registering the case and filing of chargesheet has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 11. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion, that non following of the required procedural aspect while registering the case and while filing the chargesheet resulted in miscarriage of justice. 12. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER Criminal petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.15147/2022 pending on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Kalaburagi for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act as against the petitioners are hereby quashed." 9. It is also pertinent to note that as held by this Court under identical circumstances in Rajaram’s case supra, in the absence of requisite permission being obtained under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C in relation to the alleged offences under Sections 79 and 80 of KP Act, which are non cognizable offences, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:1916 CRL.P No. 10703 of 2024 10. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) Petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2251/2024 (arising out of F.I.R. in Crime No.213/2023) qua the petitioner are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE VM/MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41