- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12858 CRL.P No. 103853 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103853 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHEKARAPPA S/O. HANAMANTHAPPA HALLIKERI, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. FARMER, R/AT: CHIKKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582 102. 2. YALLAPPA S/O. BASAPPA BANGI, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. FARMER, R/AT: CHIKKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582 102. 3. RAMANGOUD S/O. LAKKANAGOUD BENAHAL, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE WORK, R/AT: CHIKKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582 102. 4. ISHWAR S/O. MOTHILALSA BAKALE, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. APMC KHARKON, R/AT: BETAGERI, NEAR CSI HOSPITAL, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582 102. RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12858 CRL.P No. 103853 of 2025 5. NAGARAJ S/O. RAMAKRISHNA MERAWADE, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESSMAN, R/AT: HOSPET CHOWK, BETAGERI, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582 102. & PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GOURISHANKAR H. MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BETAGERI POLICE STATION, BETAGERI CIRCLE, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD-580 011. & RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS TAKEN AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5/PETITIONERS IN BETAGERI POLICE STATION CRIME NO.73 OF 2025 REGISTERED AS C.C. NO.1783/2025 CURRENTLY PENDING ON THE FILES OF 2ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC II COURT, AT: GADAG FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 80 OF K.P. ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12858 CRL.P No. 103853 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. Accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.1783/2025 pending before the Court of II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC II, Gadag, arising out of Crime No.73/2025 registered by Betageri Police Station, Gadag District, for the offence punishable under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, are before this Court in this petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case, as against them. 2. FIR in Crime No.73/2025 was registered by Betageri Police Station, Gadag District for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners herein, based on the first information dated 20.06.2025 received from Murtuja Khadri, Police Officer, attached to Gadag sub-division Police station. Assailing the correctness of the same, the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 5 in the FIR, are before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the accused in the present case is that they were indulged in playing game of Andar bahar in a private resort. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12858 CRL.P No. 103853 of 2025 The game of Andar bahar has been considered as a game of skill by this Court and therefore registration of FIR for the aforesaid offences is bad in law. He has placed reliance on multiple judgments of this Court, which has time and again said that game of Andar bahar is a game of skill and not a game of chance. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. 5. The allegation against the petitioners in the first information is that, on 20.06.2025 they were found playing the game of Andar bahar in Shivarathna palace Restaurant. 6. The police conducted a raid to the aforesaid place, apprehended all the accused and also had recovered a sum of ¹1,75,520/- along with the pack of cards, mobile phones and the vehicles belonging to the accused and thereafter the FIR was registered against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The petitioners were arrested and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who had taken cognizance for the aforesaid offences on 29.08.2025, thereby issued summons to the Petitioners. Being aggrieved by this, the Petitioners are before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12858 CRL.P No. 103853 of 2025 7. This Court in Criminal Petition No.1997 of 2021, in paragraph Nos.7 to 9 has observed as follows: <7. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners and other members of the club who were present at the time of raid were indulged in playing the game of cards which is known as Andhar Bahar. This Court in Crl.P.No.9298/2017 disposed of on 30.01.2018, has observed in paragraphs 5 & 6 as under: 5. In another decision reported in Eranna and others Vs. State of Karnataka [1977(1) Kar.L.J. 274], this court has observed that,- "Unless the prosecution proved, how the game of 'Andar Bahar' is played and in what manner bettings are recorded, it could not be inferred that it was a pure and simple game of chance and not a game of skill". 6. This court also observed in the said case that, though the persons were plaing the game called 'Andar Bahar' in a private house or at a public house, the court interpreting the provisions of Section 2(3) of K.P.Act referring to the definition of 'Common Gaming House', has observed that, though the persons were playing 'Andar Bahar' inside their house for that reason only it cannot be called as a common gaming house. When no complaint has been filed 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 circumstance, if some persons or the inmates of the house were playing 'Andar Bahar', at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the said house can be called as 'Common Gaming House'." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12858 CRL.P No. 103853 of 2025 8. In Crl.P.No.200807/2017 (Ramu & others Vs The State), the co-ordinate bench of this Court, has held in paragraph 8 as under: "8. The third contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that, though the charge sheet has been laid against the petitioners, there is nothing to demonstrate that the petitioners-accused were playing Andar Bahar and it is a game of chance. As could be seen from the records, no where the material indicates the type of game, which they are intending to play or played. Even the complaint and other material indicates that at a distance by hiding near the temple, the police officials and the other witnesses have seen that, two groups have been sat around and they were playing immediately, thereafter they have made a raid. In order to say that the petitioners were playing Andar Bahar, the prosecution has to prove how the game of Andar Bahar is played and in what manner the betting are recorded and how that the play was going on. Only by seeing at a distance, it could not been inferred that poor and simple game and no game of skill. If any betting was registered and even if any pledge of movables was made in spite of the betting that itself did not constitute a game of skill into a game of chance. If the entire material if it is perused, it was not clearly proved that the accused persons were playing Andar Bahar and it is a game of chance and as such it is not going to attract the provisions of Sections 78 and 80 of the Act. This, proposition of law has been laid down in the case of Eranna & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1977(1) Karnataka Law Journal page 274. When once all the material, which has been produced and if it does not forthcoming to show that the said game, which was intended to be or which was played was a game of chance and was not a game of skill involved in that game, under such circumstances the proceedings which have been initiated by virtue of filing the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12858 CRL.P No. 103853 of 2025 charge sheet appears to be not sustainable in law and the same are liable to be quashed. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed and proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.227/2016, pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Shahabad is hereby quashed." 9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid pronouncements rendered by this Court, I am of the view that even in the present case, admittedly the cards game which was being played by the petitioners being Andar Bahar, unless the prosecution specifies as to how the said game is a game of chance and not a game of skill, registration of criminal case as against the members of the club cannot be sustained. Further, as held in Eranna's case (supra), admittedly there is no complaint by any private party that the club premises was being used as a common gaming house.= 8. In Criminal Petition No.200052 of 2016, disposed off on 30.03.2016, in paragraph 3, it has observed as follows: <3. xxx However, the learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that playing cards in a private house or in a private property does not amount to playing any game either of skill or playing game of chance in a gaming house. Therefore, it does not fall under the category of the offences under sections 79 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12858 CRL.P No. 103853 of 2025 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act. Further he submits that playing the game of 'Andhar-Bahar', it cannot be said that the said game is a game of chance, but it is consistently held by this Court that the said game is a game of skill. When the game of skill is stated to have been played there is no question of police initiating any proceeding and proceed with the investigation for the offences punishable under sections 79 or 80 of the Karnataka Police Act. In this regard it is seen that this Court has early in the year 1977 between Eranna and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported 1977(1) Karnataka Law Journal wherein this Court has held that the charge against the accused were they were found playing 'Andhar-Bahar' in a club and that Andhar-Bahar is a game of chance, held Unless the prosecution proves how the game of Andhar-Bahar is played and in what manner bettings are recorded, it could not be inferred that it was a pure and simple game of chance and not a game of skill.= 9. This Court in Criminal Petition No.101883 of 2025 disposed off on 15.05.2025 under similar circumstances in a case which was registered by the very same police station for similar offences, in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 has observed as follows: <4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the facts involved in this petition is squarely - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12858 CRL.P No. 103853 of 2025 covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Eranna & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka¹, which is subsequently relled by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in several criminal petitions. One such petition is Crl. P. No.100877/2014, [ Ramakrishna & Others Vs. The State of Karnataka and Another, disposed of on 13.06.2014]. The Co- ordinate Bench, in its order passed in the above criminal petition, at paragraphs 5 and 6 has held as under: <5. On nalyzing 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) I.L.J. 274 In the case of Eranna Vs. State of Karnataka, which decisions declare that, <playing 8Andar Bahar9 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 8Andar Bahar9 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 8Andar Bahar9 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 8Andar Bahar9 is a game of chance and that - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12858 CRL.P No. 103853 of 2025 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=. 5. In the light of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Eranna & Ors. (supra), the issue stands resolved and no more an res integra, and this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings qua the petitioners herein.= 10 . In the light of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Eranna & Ors. (supra), the issue stands resolved and no more an res integra, and this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings qua the petitioners herein.= 11. From the aforesaid orders passed by this Court, it is very clear that the police could not have registered the case against the petitioners for offences punishable under Section 80 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12858 CRL.P No. 103853 of 2025 of the Karnataka Police Act, on the allegation that they were indulged in playing the game of Andar bahar in a private place . ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The entire proceeding in pending before II Addl Civil Judge and JMFC II, Gadag in C.C 1783/2025, for the offences punishable under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 is quashed. (iii) Liberty is granted to the petitioners to file necessary application before the jurisdictional Court seeking custody of the articles seized by the police. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN / CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 57