APHC010492692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9698/2025 Between: 1. GHTTAMANENI SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE, S/O. LATE VENKATADRI, (A1) AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 10-23, DIBBADAPALEM VILLAGE, GIDIJALA PANCHAYAT, ANANDAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. JONNALAGADDA KRISHNA BHAGAVAN,, S/O. SUBBARAYUDU, (A2) AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O D.NO.7-381/17, VASAVI NAGAR, NGO'S COLONY, KADAPA. 3. MUPPARTHI DHARMA RAO, , S/O. LATE VENKATA SATYAM, (A3) AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O., ADDU ROAD, GUMMULURU, NEAR SPANDANA BANK, RAYAVARAM, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 4. MAGIREDDY KANNA BABU,, S/O. LATE APPANNA, (A4) AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R./O., KOTHUR VILLAGE, SUNDARAYYAPETA, KASIMKOTA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI. 5. ISHAIK MADHEENA VALI SINKA, , S/O. HYDER ALI SINKA, (A5) AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O D.NO.43-15-20, TSN COLONY NEAR RAILWAY NEW COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. SHIVAKOTI SAMBASIVA RAO, , S/O S.V.S. PRASADA RAO, (A6) AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O, FLAT NO. 102, ABHINAV SAI APARTMENT, BHARATH NAGAR, KURMANNAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 7. SEERAM KOTESWARA RAO,, S/O. RAMULU, (A7) AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O, BEHIND SUKANYA THEATRE, GOPALAPATNAM, 2 VISAKHAPATNAM. 8. HABEEB,, S/O ABDUK HAFEEZ, (A8) AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, N/O FLAT. NO. 403 AND 404, TARNAKA, HYDERABAD, R/O., DIBBADIPALEM, ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, represented by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for records in C.C.No.597 of 2024 on the file of XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District and quash the same. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No.597/2024 on the file of XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition before this Hon’ble Court Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. T NAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9698 OF 2025 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed, by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 8, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.597 of 2024 on the file of the learned XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of A.P. Gaming Act-1974. 2. Heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on 16.10.2024 the police raided the Gattamaneni Guest House situated in Dibbalapalem, Gidijala Panchayath, Anandapuram, along with mediators. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that in the charge sheet, the police stated that Accused Nos.1 to 8 were playing a game of chance (“in and out”) and resorted to betting, thus were apprehended. It is also stated in the charge sheet that an amount of Rs.1,58,000/- was recovered from them. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that during the raid, the police could not ascertain the nature of the game being played, and as can be seen from the 4 mediators’ report, there is no detail as to whether the game was one of skill or chance. Despite this, the charge sheet would only state that the petitioners were found playing a game of chance (“in and out”) to frame them under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that as per the mediators’ report, it is stated that at the time of raid, the petitioners failed to show any permission to play the cards. Learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner’s Association had filed a Writ petition in W.P.No.5006 of 2019 and the same was disposed of vide Order dated 01.05.2019, by directing the police authorities not to interfere in with the card game of rummy (13 card game) and also directed the petitioner’s Association to install video cameras and record the entire recreational activities in the club. 4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the police seized cash from the scene of the offence and also seized 52 playing cards. All the petitioners/accused were arrested and that the police obtained the signatures of the mediators on the material objects seized from the scene of offence, and the mediators’ report also shows the details regarding the alleged offences. 5. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and acceded to, by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the subject matter of this Criminal Petition is squarely covered by the Order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Criminal Petition No.4079 of 2025, dated 21.04.2025. 5 6. As can be seen from the record, the Mediator’s report is silent on the nature of the game played by the petitioners. It merely stated that eight persons were sitting at table playing cards. Thereafter, the mediators ascertained the names of the eight persons. All that is elicited by the mediators is that the petitioners were playing a card game. Without ascertaining the nature of the game played, the mediators submitted a report. However, the police, based on the mediators’ report, concluded that the petitioners were playing an “in and out” game and filed the charge sheet. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners were playing “in and out” game (a game of chance). Equally, there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioners were playing a game of skill (such as “Rummy”). 7. In view of the above said circumstances, in absence of any material or evidence to establish that the petitioners have committed an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.597 of 2024 on the file of the learned XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District, is sheer abuse of process of law. 8. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 8 in C.C.No.597 of 2024 on the file of the learned XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 6 Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 06.11.2025. UPS 7 218 THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9698 OF 2025 Dated: 06.11.2025 UPS