- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21488 WP No. 7578 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 7578 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR. KARTHIK S/O. SRI. SANJEEVA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.9, 1ST FLOOR, KAVI KESHI RAJA ROAD, OPP TO ESHANYAMUKHI VINAYAKA TEMPLE, HANUMANTHANGARA, BANGALORE - 560004. PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BYLUMANE, KATTURU VILLAGE, BARKURU HOBLI, UDUPI - 576 210. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KIRAN N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21488 WP No. 7578 of 2026 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI - 576 101. 3. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BRAHMAVARA RURAL POLICE STATION, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 123. (REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA) …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN THE IMPUGNED F.I.R.NO.202/2025 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 ON 29-09-2025 FOR THE PUNISHABLE OFFENCES U/S. 78 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963 R/W SECTION 112 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS), 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE HON'BLE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., UDUPI AGAINST THIS ANNEXURE A. PETITIONER. APPENDED VIDE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21488 WP No. 7578 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Kiran N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in crime No.202/2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section 78 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 read with Section 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of MR. KARTHIK Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Ors.1, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows: "3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 25.05.2023, respondent No.3 conducted a raid of a public place in which the petitioners were 1 W.P.No.14829/2024 disposed on 01.07.2025 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21488 WP No. 7578 of 2026 playing ‘Andar Bahar' and registered FIR in Cr.No.107/2023, which is presently pending before the trial Court, which is assailed in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, in order to point out that the game, which was allegedly played by the petitioners being 'Andar Bahar', which is essentially and predominantly a 'Game of Skill' and not a 'Game of Chance', the petitioners could not be incriminated for the aforesaid offence under Sections 87 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. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. In relation to offences punishable in respect of 'Game of Chance' and 'Game of Skill', this Court in Manjunath E's case supra: "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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21488 WP No. 7578 of 2026 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 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 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, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21488 WP No. 7578 of 2026 even if the entire charge sheet is translated into evidence, it will not give any 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." M/s Legends Culture Association (R)'s case supra 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21488 WP No. 7578 of 2026 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 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21488 WP No. 7578 of 2026 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 State Government. The court had acted on the fabricated - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21488 WP No. 7578 of 2026 documents produced by the accused No.2 projecting that the money belong to Srikumar Roadlines, under whom he wasemployed. 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 itbelongs 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21488 WP No. 7578 of 2026 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 Roadlinesand 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 all its fours, I deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings, qua the petitioner. 4. 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." - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21488 WP No. 7578 of 2026 7. As held by this Court in the aforesaid judgments, in the event of a person participates/plays a 'Game of Skill', he cannot be said to have committed offences punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act, which are applicable only to 'Game of Chance' and not to 'Game of Skill'. 8. In the instant case, the material on record discloses that the petitioners, who were playing 'Andar Bahar' which is a 'Game of Skill' and not a 'Game of Chance' at the time of raid, cannot be said to have committed the aforesaid offence under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act, which only relates to 'Game of chance' and the same are not applicable to a 'Andar Bahar', which is essentially and predominantly a 'Game of Skill'. 9. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings, qua the petitioners, deserve to be quashed. 10. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The proceedings, arising out of FIR in Crime No.107/2023 registered by the 3rdrespondent – Police, pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Udupi insofar as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed." 4. In the light of the issue standing covered by judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench and the facts being undisputed, the petition stands disposed on the same terms. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21488 WP No. 7578 of 2026 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings arising out of crime No.202/2025 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Udupi, till the next date of hearing. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 93