- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.20578 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MUKESH JAIN S/O. SRI. CHANDAN MAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.102, 1ST FLOOR, KUMAR PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020. 2. LALITH KUMAR S/O CHANDAN MAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.26, NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, V.V. PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 002. 3. RANJITH KUMAR S/O. NAIN MAL JAIN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1007, PARK WEST APARTMENT, EMARALD BLACK, BINNY MILL ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 023. 4. MANISH KUMAR KANTHILAL S/O KANTHILAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.5, 6/22, 5TH FLOOR, PADMA PRABHU NIVAS, APPRURAYAPPA LINE, NEAR RAM MEDICAL, N.T. PETE, BENGALURU - 560 002. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 5. JITHENDRA JAIN, S/O SOORAJ MAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.965, SHER KHAN GALLI, NAGARTHPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 6. SANJAY KUMAR, S/O JUGARAJ JAIN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.101, I FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, NO.25, VISHAL PLAZA, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020. 7. RAJ JAIN S/O. SRI. KAILASH KUMAR JAIN, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.OC -706, 7TH FLOOR, OLIVE TOWER, PARK WEST APARTMENT, BINNY MILL ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 023. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AMIT MANDGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY J.J. NAGAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, CCB, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM, N.T. PETE, BANGALORE - 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 528 OOF THE BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.4341 OF 2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 79 AND 80 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (TRAFFIC COURT – II) AT BENGALURU WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURES – A AND ETC., 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 reliefs: “i. Quash the entire proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.4341 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court II) at Bengaluru which is produced as Annexure A, and ii. Direct the respondent Police to return the seized cash amount of Rs.85,39,500/- to petitioner No.7, which was illegally seized and retained under Property Form No.02/2024 vide Annexure-D. iii. Grant any such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned HCGP for respondents and perused the material on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the Complaint dated 08.01.2024 filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, the respondents proceeded to investigate the alleged offence without seeking prior approval from the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., which is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the cases of Vageppa Gurulinga Jangaligi Vs. State of Karnataka – ILR 2020 KAR 630 and Sri.Krishnappa M.T. and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another – Crl.P.No.13215/2023 dated 07.11.2024. So also, the counsel for the petitioners submits that at the time of alleged raid, the petitioners were playing ‘Andar Bahar’, which is a ‘Game of Skill’ and not a ‘Game of Chance’ and hence, the petitioners could not be incriminated for the aforesaid offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act as held by this Court in the following judgments: (i) Sri Manjunath E and others vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.P.No.8396/2017; (ii) M/s. Legends Culture Association (R) and another vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.P.No.8981/2024. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 4. Insofar as necessary permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. is concerned, this Court in Vageppa Gurulinga Jangaligi’s case supra held as under: “16. Therefore, this Court time and again has quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused persons in respect of non-cognizable offence on the ground that the mandatory provisions of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., are not complied with. However, this Court has not laid down any guidelines for the Learned Magistrates as to how and in what manner they have to pass the Order under Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., when a requisition is submitted to the Learned Magistrate seeking permission to investigate the non-cognizable offence. 17. In the cases referred above, invariably the Learned Magistrates have passed the orders on the requisition submitted by the SHO of the Police Station by writing a word “permitted” or “permitted to investigate”. This Court has held that making such an endorsement on the requisition submitted by the Police is not passing orders and there is no application of judicious mind in permitting the Police Officer to take up the investigation for non-cognizable offence. 18. Under these circumstances, this Court felt it necessary to lay down some guidelines for the benefit of our Judicial Magistrates as to how they have to approach and pass orders when requisition is submitted by the SHO of Police Station seeking permission to investigate into the non- cognizable offence. The provision of Section 155(1) and (2) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 of Cr. P.C., referred above make it very much clear that the SHO of the Police Station on receiving the information regarding the commission of non-cognizable offence, his first duty is to enter or cause to be entered the substance of such commission in a book maintained by such Officer and then refer the informant to the Magistrate. This is the requirement of Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C. Once the requisition is submitted to the Magistrate, it is for the Jurisdictional Magistrate to consider the requisition submitted by the SHO of Police Station and pass necessary order either permitting the Police Officer to take up the investigation or reject the requisition. Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., specifically provides that no Police Officer shall investigate the non-cognizable case without the order of the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial. Therefore, passing an “order” by the Magistrate permitting the Police Officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence is an important factor. The word without the order of the Magistrate appearing in sub-Section (2) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., makes it clear that the Magistrate has to pass an ‘order’ which means supported by reasons. On the other hand, in number of cases, the Jurisdictional Magistrates are writing a word ‘permitted’ on the requisition submitted by the Police itself which does not satisfy the requirement of Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., Such an endorsement cannot be equated with the word ‘Order’. 19. Chapter V Rule 1 of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968 also deals with investigation of non- cognizable case. The said provision reads as follows:— - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 “INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION *1. Report under Section 154.—(1) On receipt of the report of the Police Officer under Section 154 of the Code, the Magistrate shall make a note on the report of the date and time of the receipt thereof and initial the same. Before initialing, the Magistrate shall also endorse on the report whether the same has been received by the post or muddam. 2. (1) When a Magistrate directs an investigation of a case under Sections 155(2), 156(3) or 202 of the Code, he shall specify in his order the rank and designation of the Police Officer or the Police Officers by whom the investigation shall be conducted.” 20. Therefore, under Rule 1, the Magistrate shall endorse on the report whether the same has been received by post or muddam. Under Rule 2, Magistrate has to specify in his order the rank and designation of the Police Officer or the Police Officer by whom the investigation shall be conducted. Considering the mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, this Court proceed to laid down the following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrate working in the State. i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement as ‘permitted ’ on the police requisition itself Such an endorsement is not an order in the eyes of law and as mandated under Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C. ii) When the requisition is submitted by the informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should make an endorsement on it as to how it was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 received, either by post or by Muddam and direct the office to place it before him with a separate order sheet. No order should be passed on the requisition itself. The said order sheet should be continued for further proceedings in the case. iii) When the requisition is submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine whether the SHO of the police station has referred the informant to him with such requisition. iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should examine the contents of the requisition with his/her judicious mind and record finding as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated, if the Magistrate finds that it is not a fit case to investigate, he/she shall reject the prayer made in the requisition. Only after his/her subjective satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the police officer to take up the investigation, he/she shall record a finding to that effect permitting the police officer to investigate the non- cognizable offence. v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders permitting the investigation, he/she shall specify the rank and designation of the Police Officer who has to investigate the case, who shall be other than informant or the complainant. 21. Coming to the case on hand, the SHO of Kagwad Police Station received a complaint from PSI on 23/9/2019 and SHO submitted a requisition to IV Additional JMFC, Athani, seeking permission to investigate the offence under Section 87 of the K.P. Act which is a non-cognizable offence. It is seen that the Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has made an endorsement on the requisition which reads as follows:— “Perused materials. Permitted Sd/-” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 22. Therefore, absolutely there is no application of judicious mind by the Learned Magistrate before permitting the Police to investigate the non-cognizable offence much less an order passed by the Learned Magistrate. 23. Under these circumstances, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in CC No. 3397/2019 pending on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, are liable to be quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., is allowed and the said proceedings are hereby quashed as against the petitioner is concerned. 24. Registry is directed to forward the copy of the order to the Director of Karnataka State Judicial Academy, Bengaluru, for information and necessary action. 25. Registry is also directed to circulate the copy of the order to all the judicial Magistrates in the State to follow guidelines laid down in the order.” 5. In the case of Sri. Krishnappa M.T.’s case supra this Court held as under: ‘9. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Section 504 and 34 of the IPC. They are admittedly non cognizable. Therefore, a non-cognizable report was rendered by the jurisdictional police, after interaction on 24.08.2020. The Station House Officer then travels to the Court of the Magistrate seeking permission for registration of a crime for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 34 of the IPC, since the offences alleged were non- cognizable, the nod of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 of the Cr.P.C. was imperative. The learned Magistrate passes the following order: "The PSI of Turuvekere Police Station approached with requisition seeking permission to proceed with the investigation of non-cognizable case. It is mentioned that the complainant lodged the written information about alleged insult caused by the proposed accused persons. As per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., there is a bar for the police officer to proceed with the investigation of the non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case or commit the case for trial. When, police officer received, the information about non- cognizable case, then necessarily seek from permission the Jurisdictional magistrate to proceed with the investigation. By considering the request and information of the complainant, it is revealed that the information in a non-cognizable case is received by the police officer. In the interest of justice, it is proper to accord permission to proceed in accordance with Law." The learned Magistrate records that the Police Officer receives the information about a non-cognizable offence, then necessarily has to seek permission from jurisdictional Magistrate, to proceed with the investigation. This is the procedure that is narrated in the order. The so called application of mind by the learned Magistrate is only in the words "By considering the request and information of the complainant, it is revealed that the information in a non- cognizable case is received by the police officer. In the interest of justice, it is proper to accord permission to proceed in accordance with Law." - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 10. The afore-quoted words of the learned Magistrate can by no stretch of imagination be an order, which bears application of mind. 11. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor seeks to defend this action on the score that it is a lengthy order and it does bear application of mind. I decline to accept the said submission as what is required in law, while the Magistrate grants permission to register a crime, is application of mind, which is ostensibly absent in the afore-quoted paragraph. Therefore, it is not an order that has even a semblance of application of mind. It is rather shocking that Magistrates while granting permission, do not apply their mind and callously grant permission to register the crime while passing orders under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. These acts of passing orders, which bear no reasons or application of mind, have resulted in docket explosion before this Court. Therefore, time and again this Court has directed the Magistrates not to indulge in passing of such orders. The Magistrates are still passing the same orders, as if it is a frolicsome act. 12. In the case at hand, the afore-quoted paragraph is the reason. It is in fact an order which has no reasons. Merely passing lengthy orders, only to fill up the pages, will not mean an order on application of mind. It is the application of mind that is necessary in law and not application of ink; it is not the flow of ink on the paper - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 that is necessary in law, but flow of content depicting such application of mind.” 6. In the case of Sri.L.S. Tejasvi Surya Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors passed in Crl.P.No.9961/2021 dated 15.02.2022, this Court held as under: “Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents. 2. Petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceedings pursuant to F.I.R. No.51/2019. Petitioner has also sought for quashing of the charge sheet dated 02.07.2019 and also for quashing the entire proceedings arising out of C.C.No.3077/2020 pending before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. 3. The petitioner submits that pursuant to the information made out by a counsel to the 2nd respondent on 17.04.2019, the 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the 1st respondent on the same day. The allegation made out was that one Sri. Narayanappa had got printed about 2000 copies of pamphlets on behalf of the petitioner herein who was the BJP candidate and distributed the same without mentioning name and address of the printer and publisher and accordingly, committed offence under Section 127A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') and action was sought for as regards the said - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 offence. It is submitted that information was then made out to the Magistrate as per Annexure-C requesting for permission to commence investigation. On the basis of written requisition at Annexure-C, Magistrate has endorsed the word 'permitted'. 4. It is submitted that such endorsement is not in consonance with the requirement under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C and is clearly in violation of the directions passed by this Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangaligi) vs. The State Of Karnataka – ILR 2020 KAR 630. 5. It is further submitted that though the offences made out in the FIR were 127(2) and 127A of the Act and171F of IPC, the charge sheet that came to be filed after investigation only made out offence of Section 127A of the Act. Accordingly, it is submitted that the proceedings consequent to the permission given by the Magistrate requires to be set aside on the sole ground that the order is not in consonance with the requirements of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that even on merits, the proceedings are liable to be quashed as the requirement under Section 127A is only as regards to the person who prints and cannot in any way lead to proceedings to be carried out as against the petitioner who was the candidate. 6. In so far as the contention that permission given by the Magistrate is contrary to the mandate - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 under Section 155(2) of the Act, the said contention requires to be accepted. This Court in the judgment in the case of Vaggeppa (supra) has pointed out the procedure to be followed while granting permission for investigation. Relevant observation made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at paragraph No.20 is extracted hereunder: "20. Therefore, under Rule I, the Magistrate shall endorse on the report whether the same has been received by post or muddam. Under Rule 2, the Magistrate has to specify in his order the rank and designation of the police officer or the police officer by whom the investigation shall be conducted. Considering the mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules Practice, this Court proceed to laid down the following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrate working in the State. i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement as 'permitted' on the police requisition itself. Such an endorsement is not an order in the eyes of lawandasmandatedunderSection155(2)of Cr.P.C. ii) When the requisition is submitted by the informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should make an endorsement on it as to how it was received, either by post or by Muddam and direct the office to place it before him with a separate order sheet. No order should be passed on the requisition itself. The said order sheet should be continued for further proceedings in the case. iii) When the requisition is submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 examine whether the SHO of the police station has referred the informant to him with such requisition. iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should examine the contents of the requisition with his/her judicious mind and record finding as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated. If the Magistrate finds that it is not a fit case to investigate, he/she shall reject the prayer made in the requisition. Only after his/her subjective satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the police officer to take up the investigation, he/she shall record a finding to that effect permitting the police officer to investigate the non- cognizable offence. v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders permitting the investigation, he/she shall specify the rank and designation of the Police Officer who has to investigate the case, who shall be other than informant or the complainant." 7. Clearly, the requirement that is made out is that when the requisition is submitted by the informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should make an endorsement on it as to how it was received and direct the office to place it before him with a separate order sheet. The Court has clarified that no order should be passed on the requisition itself and that the entry to be made in that regard is to be made in the order sheet and the said order sheet should be continued for further proceedings. Further direction has been passed at sub-para (iv) of paragraph No.20 of the judgment extracted above which also requires the Magistrate to examine the contents of the requisition and record a finding as to whether it is a fit case to be - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 investigated and that if the Magistrate finds that it is not a fit case to be investigated, he shall reject the prayer made in the requisition. It is further pointed out that only after his subjective satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the police officer to take up the investigation, he shall record a finding to that effect permitting the police officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence. 8. It is also clarified that Annexure-C is a plea made by the2nd respondent. In accordance with the mandate underSection155(2) of Cr.P.C., the informant is to be referred to the Magistrate which is preceded by the officer in-charge of the police station having made out necessary entry of the substance of the information in the book kept as mandated under Section 155. The Magistrate is to examine the informant and the complaint given by him and then proceed further. 9. Clearly, the said procedure that has been laid down in the judgment referred to above has not been followed in the present case. In light of the same, the endorsementoftheMagistratedated18.04.2019isset aside and the matter is relegated to the stage of the informant being referred to the Magistrate in terms of the procedure prescribed under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. While it requires to be noticed that as per the observation in sub- para (iv) of paragraph No.20 of the judgment extracted above, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether permission for investigation needs to be granted and accordingly, it - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 would not be appropriate in the present proceedings to address the other contentions raised by the petitioner as regards to the proceedings to be bad in law as ingredients of Section 127A of the Act are not satisfied. The said aspect, needless to state is a matter to be considered by the Magistrate before granting permission by passing an order under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. 10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off subject to observations made above.” 7. Insofar as the contention that ‘Andar Bahar’ is a ‘Game of Skill’ and not a ‘Game of Chance’ is concerned, this Court in Sri Manjunath E’s case supra, held as under: "The petitioners have called in question the proceedings pending before the MMTC, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.20386/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 79 & 80 of the Karnataka Police Act. 2. A strong legal point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the entire proceedings is hit by Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., as the Respondent- Police have not taken any permission from the Magistrate to investigate the matter and to file a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Court. He contended that, even the entire charge sheet is translated into evidence, there is no material to show that the Game played by the accused ie., ‘Fantastic Three Dice Bowling’ is a game of chance or it is a game of skill, that fact is not mentioned in the complaint nor it has been explained - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 as to how the game being played by the accused and it is only a game of chance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this court reported in Criminal Petition No.3082/2007 dated 22.10.2008, wherein this court has reiterated that, the investigation done by the police is with regard to non-cognizable offences without taking permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of Cr.PC., hence, the entire proceedings are vitiated. Even if the court has gone to the extent of saying that, mere permission by the Magistrate without application of judicious mind with regard to the facts and without recording his satisfaction with regard to the ground to believe that non-cognizable offence is committed, even such blanket permission is also invalid in the eye of law. In this particular case, the entire charge sheet/FIR does not disclose that the police have taken any permission from the learned Magistrate to investigate the case and to file a report. As rightly contended by the learned counsel, though it is stated in the charge sheet that the people in Puradamma Recreation Association, Dynamic- 3, No.11 & 12, Moto Rayal Arcade, Brigade Road, Bengaluru, were playing a game with ‘Fentastic-3 with the help of a dice which has been pasted with stickers of various brands viz., Addidas, Nike, Reebok, Joker, Fila, Puma Stickers, but nowhere it is stated as to how the game was played and whether it required any skill or it is a pure game of chance. In the absence of such elucidation of facts in the entire charge sheet, even if the entire charge sheet is translated into evidence, it will not give any - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 indication whether the game alleged to have been played is a pure game of chance or skill. Therefore, in the absence of such materials and in view of the above illegality during the course of investigation, in my opinion, the proceedings are not sustainable either in law or on facts. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following. ORDER The petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No.20386/2016 (arising out of Crime No.35/2016 on the file of Cubbon Park Layout Police Station, Bengaluru) registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 79 & 80 of K.P. Act, and now pending on the file of Metropolitan magistrate (Traffic Court-I), Bengaluru, and all proceedings therein, insofar as the petitioners herein concerned, are hereby quashed." 8. In M/s Legends Culture Association (R)'s case supra this Court held as under: "The petitioners are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.228/2024, pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holalkere, Chitradurga District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. 2. Heard Sri Bharath Kumar V., learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 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 - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 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”. 9. In Criminal Revision Petition No.100031/2014 dated 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. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 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 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 - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 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 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 - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 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 the indemnity 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 - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 all its fours, I deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings, qua the petitioner. 9. For the reasons aforementioned, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned Crime No.228/2024, pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holalkere, Chitradurga District, stands quashed. I.A.No.1/2024 also stands disposed, as a consequence." 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned proceedings falling foul of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments since the investigation was conducted without prior permission of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) and so also the alleged game played by the petitioners being a ‘Game of Skill’ and not a ‘Game of Chance’, I am of the view that impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed. 11. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned criminal proceedings in C.C.No.4341/2024 arising out of Crime - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27746 WP No. 20578 of 2025 No.2/2024 registered by the respondent – Police, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court – II), Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 insofar as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed. iii. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to file an application seeking release of the seized amount, which shall be considered by the Trial Court as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37