- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510272026 NC: 2026:KHC:44114 CRL.P No. 11143 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11143 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. THIPPESWAMY K S/O SHANTARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O KUNABEVU VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577 501. 2. MEHABOOB BHASHA S/O ANVAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O RAMADASA COMPOUND, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 3. PRATHAP S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O BANK COLONY, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 4. PALAIAH S/O BHAKTAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O KALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TOWN, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510272026 NC: 2026:KHC:44114 CRL.P No. 11143 of 2026 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 5. MARUTHESH N.H S/O HANUMANTHAREDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O GUDDARANGAVVANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 6. RANGASWAMY G S/O GADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O KATIHALLI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 7. BHARATHKUMARA S/O BORAIAH R/O HALEDYAMAVVANAHALLI VILLAGE, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 8. DEEPAK S/O GANGADHARA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O HORAPETE, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 9. NATARAJA S/O BALAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NEAR ADARSHA KALYANA MANTAPA CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510272026 NC: 2026:KHC:44114 CRL.P No. 11143 of 2026 10. MANJUNATHA S/OLAKSHMAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O NEHARU NAGARA 3RD CROSS, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 11. MANJUNATHA S/O KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O SARASPATHI PURAM 1ST CROSS, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 12. SHIVAPRAKASHA S/O OMKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O DCC BANK LAYOUT NEAR SAROJA KALYANA MANTAPA CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 13. VENKATESHA S/O THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O INAHALLI KURUBARAHATTI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 14. SHIVANNA S/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O KOVARAHATTI VILLAGE, HIRIYURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 598. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510272026 NC: 2026:KHC:44114 CRL.P No. 11143 of 2026 15. NAZEER S/O CHAMANSAB AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O NEAR BASAVESWARA TAKIS, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 16. SHEKARA S/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O BURUJANAHATTI, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 17. JAYANNA S/O THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O MANANGI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 18. SADASHIVA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O BEEMASAMUDRA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 19. NAGARAJA S/O MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O HOSALLI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510272026 NC: 2026:KHC:44114 CRL.P No. 11143 of 2026 20. SHIVASHANKARA S/O NANAIAHREDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O BELAGATTA, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 21. SURESHA S/O DASARA OBANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O KELAGOTE, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 22. JABIVULLA S/O MEHABOOBSAB AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O HULIYARU ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGARA HIRIYURU TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 598. 23. MUSHEER S/O ABDULSATTAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. R/O NEHARU NAGARA 3RD CROSS, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 24. BASAVARAJA S/O MURUGENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O RUMMAGHATTA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510272026 NC: 2026:KHC:44114 CRL.P No. 11143 of 2026 25. SHIVANNA S/O SHANKARANAIK AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O NEAR RAILWAY STATION, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 26. RAJANNA S/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NEAR RAILWAY STATION, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 27. HARISHA S/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O NEHARU NAGARA 3RD CROSS, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 28. MUSTAF S/O MAHABOOBSAB AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O CHELAGUDDA, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 29. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O THIRUMALAPURA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510272026 NC: 2026:KHC:44114 CRL.P No. 11143 of 2026 30. BABUREDDY S/O THIPPAREDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O OWNER OF DURGADASIRI HOTEL, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501. 31. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O GOKULANATHA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O MANAGER OF DURGADASIRI HOTEL CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577 501. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMARAPPA T.C, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TOWN POLICE STATION CHITRADURGA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, AMBEDKAR BEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUE OF SUMMONS TO THE PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1 TO 14, 16, 18 TO 23 AND 25 TO 34 IN C.C.NO.2503/2025 BY THE LEARNED II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C CHITRADURGA BY HIS ORDER DATED 22.09.2025 - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510272026 NC: 2026:KHC:44114 CRL.P No. 11143 of 2026 AND 23.09.2025 AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE SUB- INSPECTOR OF TOWN P.S. CHITRADURGA AGAINST ACCUSED NO.1 TO 14, 16, 18 TO 23 AND 25 TO 34 IN CR.NO.142/2025 C.C.NO.2503/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 79, 80 OF K.P ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C CHITRADURGA BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.P. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.2503/2025 pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga, for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Heard Sri. Shivakumarappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510272026 NC: 2026:KHC:44114 CRL.P No. 11143 of 2026 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit 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 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 - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510272026 NC: 2026:KHC:44114 CRL.P No. 11143 of 2026 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 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 - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510272026 NC: 2026:KHC:44114 CRL.P No. 11143 of 2026 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 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 - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510272026 NC: 2026:KHC:44114 CRL.P No. 11143 of 2026 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". 4. 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 petitioners. 5. For the reasons aforementioned, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510272026 NC: 2026:KHC:44114 CRL.P No. 11143 of 2026 (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.2503/2025 pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga, stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27