- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5193 CRL.P No. 14043 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14043 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SUBRAMANI S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT JAIMANGALA GRAMA MALUR TALUK, KOLAR – 563 130. 2. SRINIVAS S/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT LAKKUR GRAMA VARTHUR HOBLI, KOLAR – 562 130. 3. NAGA S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT MADHURANAGAR MUTHSANDRA MAINROAD VARTHUR POST BENGALURU – 560 087. 4. BHIM SINGH S/O JAI SINGH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT LAKKUR GRAMA MALUR TALUK, KOLAR – 563 130. Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5193 CRL.P No. 14043 of 2025 5. MANJUNATH S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NEAR VIJAYA BAR SOR HUNSE CRICLE MATHSANDRA MAIN ROAD VARTHUR, BENGALURU – 560 080. 6. SANDEEP S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT KOTTUR GRAMA ASHOK BUILDING, VARTHUR BENGALURU – 560 087. 7. SANDEEP S/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT LAKKUR GRAMA MALUR TALUK, KOLAR – 563 130. 8. MURALI S/O JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT LAKKUR GRAMA MALUR TALUK, KOLAR – 563 130. 9. RAVI S/O SRINIVAS REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT LAKKUR GRAMA MALUR TALUK, KOLAR – 563 130. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ADARSHA R., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5193 CRL.P No. 14043 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SURYANAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU RURAL – 562 107 REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. BASAVARAJ SAVATAGI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE SURYANAGAR P.S, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU RURAL – 562 107. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 BNNS PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.29/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE IV ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, ANEKAL FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 78 AND 80 OF KP ACT INITIATED BASED ON CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT/SURYANAGAR P.S. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5193 CRL.P No. 14043 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 9 are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.29/2025 pending before the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, for the offences punishable under Sections 78 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. 2. Heard Sri Adarsha R., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in the case at hand stands answered by the judgment rendered by a 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, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5193 CRL.P No. 14043 of 2025 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 to be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5193 CRL.P No. 14043 of 2025 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”. 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 impugned proceedings in C.C.No.29/2025 pending before the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, stands quashed. I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed, as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 CT:SS