- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5902 CRL.P No. 891 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 891 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SHIVAKUMAR S/O BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A NO.95, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, NAGAPPA BLOCK, SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU - 560 021. 2. KRISHNEGOWDA, S/O BANDI NANJE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A NO.41, 6TH CROSS, BMA LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARA NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 079. 3. KRISHNA, S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/A NO.10, 12TH B CROSS, VAYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU - 560 003. 4. SATHISH, S/O LATE SVR BADRANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A NO.422, 14TH C CROSS, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 086. Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5902 CRL.P No. 891 of 2026 5. SURESH, S/O LATE VENKATACHALAYYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO. 104, 11TH CROSS, NEAR MADHURAMMA TEMPLE, SRINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 050. 6. SHIVAKUMAR, S/O MAHALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO.73, 2ND CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 011. 7. RAVI, S/O HAVALLI POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO.521, 4TH BLOCK, 4TH MAIN ROAD, RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 010. 8. LOKESH, S/O SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO.210, 3RD CROSS, CONVENT SCHOOL ROAD, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079. 9. HARSHA, S/O PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A NO. 104, RAJINA APARTMENT, YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU - 560 022. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ADARSHA. R.,ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5902 CRL.P No. 891 of 2026 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRIRAMPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 021 REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. DAYANAND M J, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SPECIAL ENQUIRY WING, CCB, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.197/2025 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE MMTC-3 BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S. 79 AND 80 OF KP ACT INITIATED BY 1ST RESPONDENT/SRIRAMPURA P.S. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5902 CRL.P No. 891 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in crime No.197/2025 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court -3), Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. 2. Heard Sri. Adarsha R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-Ordinate Bench 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, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5902 CRL.P No. 891 of 2026 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 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5902 CRL.P No. 891 of 2026 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”. (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the afore-extracted judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench 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. 4. For the reasons aforementioned, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The investigation in crime No.197/2025 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court -3), Bengaluru, stand quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 94