Imran vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 6715 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Imran vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 August, 2025

Author: Saurabh Srivastava

Bench: Saurabh Srivastava

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144349
 

 
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144349
 
Court No. - 77
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27610 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Imran
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Diwan Saifullah Khan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant to quash the charge sheet dated 12.12.2022 submitted in Case Crime No. 118 of 2022, under Section 13 of U.P. Public Gambling Act, 1867, Police Station- Mantola, District- Agra as well as summoning order dated 01.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR has been lodged by opposite party no. 2/concerned Sub-Inspector of Police namely Manoj Kumar Pal alleging therein that applicant along with some other co-accused persons was involved in betting game, wherein name of the applicant has been implicated by opposite party no.2 due to malicious intention with applicant. After conclusion of investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant along with other co-accused persons whereupon cognizance has been taken by learned concerned court vide order dated 01.02.2023.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. mandated that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a magistrate having the power to try such a case or commit the case for trial and as in the instant case police did not take permission from the learned magistrate to commence the investigation thus the entire proceeding commenced as soon as after registration of FIR becomes void-ab-initio. For substantiating his arguments learned counsel for the applicant relied upon a judgment, dated 12.05.2025 rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Imran Khan and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another passed in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 26740 of 2024. In reference to the said judgment, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the said case is identical to that of applicant's and as such applicant seeks parity with the same. He has also relied upon the judgement passed by this Court in case of Imran vs. State of U.P. and Another in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.28403 of 2024.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application but could not dispute the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant with respect to judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Imran Khan (Supra) and the order passed by this Court in Imran (supra).

6. Before proceeding it would be apposite to reproduce relevant extracts of judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Imran Khan (Supra).

"7. After hearing learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and on perusal of FIR, charge sheet and impugned summoning order, it is admitted position that the charge sheet has been filed under Section 3/4 of Gambling Act, 1867 and the maximum punishment under Section 3/4 Public Gambling Act, 1867 read with State Amendments to a fine not exceeding two thousand rupees nor less than five hundred rupees and to rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months nor less than three months even for subsequent offence, means the offences are cognizable.

8. For clarity, Sections 3 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 are reproduced herein below:

"3. Penalty for owning or keeping, or having charge of a gaming-house.?Whoever, being the owner or occupier, or having the use, of any house, walled enclosure, room or place situated within the limits to which this Act applies, opens, keeps or uses the same as a common gaming-house; and whoever, being the owner or occupier of any such house, walled enclosure, room or place as aforesaid, knowingly or wilfully permits the same to be opened, occupied, used or kept by any other person as a common gaming-house; and whoever has the care or management of, or in any manner assists in conducting, the business of any house, walled enclosure, room or place as aforesaid, opened, occupied, used or kept for the purpose aforesaid; and whoever advances or furnishes money for the purpose of gaining with persons frequenting such house, walled enclosure, room or place; shall be liable to a fine not exceeding two-hundred rupees, or to imprisonment of either description,1 as defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), for any term not exceeding three months.2

4. Penalty for being found in gaming-house.?Whoever is found in any such house, walled enclosure, room or place, playing or gaming with cards, dice, counters, money or other instruments of gaming, or is found there present for the purpose of gaming, whether playing for any money, wager, stake or otherwise, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred rupees, or to imprisonment of either description,1 as defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), for any term not exceeding one month,2 and any person found in any common gaming-house during any gaming or playing therein shall be presumed, until the contrary be proved, to have been there for the purpose of gaming."

9. In 1952, in Section 3 for the words "two hundred rupees" substituted by the words "five hundred rupees" by U.P. Act 34 of 1952 and by the U.P. Act of 21 of 1961 the last paragraph of section 3 has been substituted by "shall be liable - in case of first offence to fine not exceeding five hundred rupees nor less than two hundred rupees and to rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months; and in case of any subsequent offence to fine exceeding two thousand rupees nor less than five hundred rupees and to rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months nor less than three months".

10. In section 4 of the Act, for the words "one hundred rupees", substitute the words three hundred rupees" by U.P. Act, 34 of 1952 w.e.f. 5.12.1952 and words beginning with " shall be liable to a fine" and ending with "exceeding one month" was deleted and substituted by "shall be liable-in case of a first offence to a fine not exceeding three hundred rupees nor less than one hundred rupees or to rigorous imprisonment for any term not exceeding one month, and in the case of any subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding five hundred rupees nor less than two hundred rupees and to rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or less than one month".

11. Lastly, the state of Uttar Pradesh had enhanced the sentence in corresponding sections in the year 1961 by bringing state amendment through U.P. Act of 21 of 1961 in the Public Gambling Act, 1867, whereby the punishment was enhanced accordingly; for a first offence, the offender may have to pay a fine between rupees one hundred and three hundred and may be awarded rigorous imprisonment for up to one month. For any later offences, the maximum fine shall be two thousand rupees, and the offender may be awarded rigorous imprisonment for twelve months.

12. The Public Gambling Act, 1867, is a colonial-era law enacted by the British Government in India to regulate gambling activities and suppress public gambling houses. At the time of its enactment, the Act addressed conventional gambling ? card games, betting on dice, and similar forms held in physical gambling houses. Under sections 3 and 4, it criminalized operating or visiting a common gaming house. The maximum penalty imposed under the Act was a fine of ?500 or imprisonment for up to three months - a substantial deterrent in the year 1867, but negligible today.

13. The Public Gambling Act is a pre-digital law. It makes no mention of digital platforms, servers, or cross-border transactions. Its enforcement is limited to physical gambling houses and has no jurisdiction over virtual gambling environments accessed via mobile phones, computers, or offshore servers.

14. The Act in the Era of Online Gambling has lost its impact and relevance as there is no definition or regulation of online gambling. Negligible penalties- a maximum two thousand fine and imprisonment up to twelve months, that too for subsequent offence- do not deter large-scale illegal operations. There is a lack of clarity on the legal status of fantasy sports, poker, and e-sports. Jurisdictional issues also arise, as online platforms operate across state, national, and international boundaries.

15. The legal framework governing gambling has undergone significant transformation worldwide, particularly in response to the rapid expansion of digital platforms. The UK Gambling Act of 2005, which represents, as argued, a modern and adaptive approach to regulating both offline and online gambling activities. This legislation encompasses a wide range of provisions, including licensing requirements, age verification protocols, responsible advertising standards, and anti-money laundering measures.

15.1 A central feature of the Act is the establishment of the UK Gambling Commission, which serves as the regulatory authority overseeing gambling operators. Under this framework, online casinos and betting platforms are legal, provided they obtain the appropriate licenses. The Act also places a strong emphasis on consumer protection, offering tools such as self-exclusion programs to promote responsible gambling.

15.2 In 2023, the UK Government proposed further reforms aimed at enhancing player safety, including affordability checks for online gamblers and stricter regulations for online slot machines, reflecting the dynamic nature of regulatory needs in the digital age.

16. Other countries have adopted varying approaches. Australia, for example, regulates online gambling under the Interactive Gambling Act of 2001, which allows certain types of online betting while prohibiting others. In contrast, the United States adopts a fragmented model, where online gambling legality is determined at the state level?states like New Jersey and Pennsylvania have fully legalized and regulated online casinos. Meanwhile, countries such as Singapore and South Korea enforce strict controls, permitting only limited and highly regulated forms of digital betting.

17. The rise of fantasy sports platforms like Dream11, MPL, and My11Circle has reshaped the Indian digital gaming landscape. In response to the sector's rapid growth and associated legal ambiguities, NITI Aayog, the Indian Government's premier policy think tank, released a policy paper titled "Guiding Principles for the Uniform National-Level Regulation of Online Fantasy Sports Platforms in India" in December 2020. While the document marked a significant step in acknowledging and formalizing a fast-evolving industry.

18. "Betting and gambling" in India are governed under the Constitution as a "State Subject," which means that the state legislatures have the exclusive power to make laws on matters related to betting and gambling under Entry 34 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the guidelines framed are not binding at the state level. Fantasy sports in India lie in a legal grey area, straddling the line between games of skill (permitted) and games of chance (prohibited under the Public Gambling Act, 1867). Multiple High Court rulings ? notably in Punjab and Haryana, Rajasthan, and Bombay ? have recognized fantasy sports as a game of skill, thereby legitimizing platforms under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India -right to practice any profession.

19. The GST Council in its 50th Meeting has also imposed a 28% tax on the full face value of bets in online gaming, casinos, and horse racing represents a significant policy shift aimed at increasing tax revenues and standardizing the taxation framework in it.

20. There are other key concerns as well, ignored by the current prevailing framework in India, like:

20.1 Online gaming platforms use psychologically manipulative algorithms ("Manipulative algorithms" refer to computer algorithms?often used in online platforms, apps, or digital services that exploit cognitive biases or psychological vulnerabilities to influence user decision-making, often in a non-transparent or coercive manner, raising concerns about fairness, autonomy, non- accountability and consumer protection.), reward systems, and notifications to encourage prolonged use. This has led to a rise in gaming addiction, anxiety, depression, and social isolation, especially among adolescents and young adults.

20.2 Students are increasingly distracted by online gaming, often at the cost of their academic performance and family relationships. The disruption of sleep cycles, lack of discipline, and social withdrawal are common consequences.

20.3 The illusion of "easy money" through real-money gaming attracts many from low- and middle-income families. Once trapped, users may incur huge financial losses, leading to loans, theft, or even suicidal tendencies.

20.4 Online gaming has been linked to cybercrime, including data theft, cheating, and even blackmail. Illegal betting rings often operate under the facade of legitimate gaming platforms.

20.5 Easy access to digital payments- through credit cards, UPI, and mobile wallets- makes it effortless to spend large sums on gaming apps. These platforms exploit dopamine-driven reward mechanisms, pushing users into a vicious cycle of debt and compulsive gambling.

20.6 Many online betting operations function outside India's jurisdiction, with servers located abroad and transactions routed through unregulated channels. This poses challenges for law enforcement and increases the risk of money laundering, financial fraud, and terror funding.

21. Therefore, modern, technology-sensitive legislation is urgently needed to address the psychological, social, and national security implications of online gaming. Comprehensive reform must include centralised regulation, age restrictions, financial controls, platform accountability, and public awareness campaigns to safeguard the well-being of India's youth and society.

22. The inherent powers of the High Court empower it to intervene when necessary to secure the ends of justice. It ensures that no injustice is caused by the rigid application of procedural laws. It reinforces the principle that the justice is not defeated because of the procedural requirements.

23. Thus, till a robust legislative framework is enacted recognizing the digital nature of gaming and imposing clear regulatory safeguards, the fines and imprisonment terms may be revised in line with inflation and the scale of operations in Uttar Pradesh by bringing necessary amendments in the existing law, thereby making the offence non-cognizable.

24. Based upon the foregoing discussions, it's high time that a legislative framework be enacted to meet the transformative changes in online betting and gaming. In the light of critical issue raised herein, this Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction and the authority vested in the High Court, takes a suo motu cognizance and hereby directs the State Government to constitute a High-Powered Committee, comprising Prof. K.V. Raju, Economic Advisor to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, as its chairperson, to examine all relevant factors, particularly those outlined above comprehensively to meet out the legislative necessity arising from the transformed socio-technological concerning online betting and gaming. The Committee may include the Principal Secretary, State Tax as Member Secretary, besides other experts as Members. Their collective input should be used to develop a comprehensive and well-structured legislative framework for regulating and monitoring online gaming and public betting.

25. So far as merits of the present case is concerned, I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the applicants that the investigation has been barred by section 155 (2) Cr.P.C., therefore, the entire exercise undertaken by the police stands vitiated in law, thus, the impugned charge sheet dated 27.12.2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 69 of 2022, under Section 3/4 Public Gambling Act, 1867, registered at P.S. Mantola, District Agra, as well as impugned summoning order dated 23.05.2023, passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Agra are hereby quashed with the liberty to police to initiate fresh investigation after complying with existing provisions of law.

26. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

27. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to transmit a copy of this order forthwith to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh for compliance."

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that applicant's case is squarely covered with the judgment, dated 12.05.2025 passed in the case of Imran Khan (Supra) wherein it has been held that the investigation conducted by the authorities concerned is barred by Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. and as such, in the light of the aforesaid judgment, I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case also no compliance of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. has been made by the authorities concerned and as such the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant pursuant to Section 13 of U.P. Public Gambling Act, 1867, cannot but be said to be an abuse of the process of law or the Court. As such the entire exercise undertaken by the police stands vitiated in law, thus the impugned charge sheet dated 12.12.2022, arising out of Case Crime No.118 of 2022, under Section 13 of U.P. Public Gambling Act, Police Station- Mantola, District- Agra as well as summoning order dated 01.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra are hereby quashed with the liberty to police to initiate fresh investigation after complying with existing provisions of law.

8. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

9. However, fresh investigation after seeking permission of learned Court concerned and outcome of the same may initiated if required against applicant and as such this order will not be taken as impediment for the same.

10. However, it is also made clear that the connected matter, i.e, Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.1172 of 2025 with this application is hereby de-linked.

Order Date :- 19.8.2025

Saif