Bombay High Court
Manojsingh S/O. Chunnialal ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 13 December, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 apl670.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.670 OF 2017
1. Manojsingh s/o. Chunnilal Thakur,
Aged about 31 years, Occ. Business,
r/o. Ward No.2, Shivaji Nagar,
Mahadulla, Nagpur. (Mob.
9850743195).
2. Megharaj s/o. Hiraman Belekar,
Aged about 42 years, Occ. Business,
r/o. Ward No.2, Near Z.P. School,
New Koradi, Koradi, Nagpur.
3. Pankaj s/o. Bhaiyyalal Belekar,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Business,
r/o. Ward No.2, House No.69,
Near Z.P. School, New Koradi,
Koradi, Nagpur.
4. Ravindra s/o. Gulabrao Chaudhari,
Aged about 30 years, Occ.Business,
r/o. New Nanda, Koradi, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:52:30 :::
2 apl670.17.odt
5. Ganesh s/o. Ashok Barde,
Aged about 37 years, Occ.Business,
r/o. Ward No.2, House No.69, Near
Z.P. School, New Koradi, Koradi,
Nagpur.
6. Biharisingh s/o. Bhagatsingh Chauhan,
Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business,
r/o. Bhokara, Koradi, Nagpur.
7. Rupesh s/o. Mohapat Patil,
Aged about 25 years, Occ. Business,
r/o. Bhokara, Koradi, Nagpur.
8. Prashant s/o.Khushal Behune,
Aged about 25 years, Occ. Business,
r/o. New Bina, Khaparkheda,
Nagpur. .......... APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O., P.S.,Khaparkheda,
Distt. Nagpur. .......... RESPONDENT
____________________________________________________________
Mr.A.S.Band, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr.N.S.Rao, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
____________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 01:52:30 :::
3 apl670.17.odt
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 13th December, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :
1. The Criminal Application is admitted and heard finally
with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. The applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the
First Information Report dt.9.9.2017 registered by Police Station,
Khaparkheda, District Nagpur for the offence punishable under
Sections 4 and 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act,
1887 in Crime No.0505/2017. It is submitted by the applicants that
they are falsely implicated in the said crime.by Police Station,
Khaparkheda.
3. It is alleged by respondent/State that, at the time of
effecting raid at New Nanda at White Apartment, Police Officer
found 22-26 persons playing/gambling with 52 cards. It is further
4 apl670.17.odt
alleged that the applicants/gamblers were having a sum of
Rs.1,02,000/- and 21 mobiles. Those were seized by the Police
Officer.
4. It is submitted that there is no mention in the F.I.R.
about what type of games were played by the applicants. The
applicants were not playing any game of chance. Hence, prima facie
offence punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Maharashtra
Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 is not established. Report also
does not disclose about the game played by the applicants.
Therefore, prayed to quash and set aside the F.I.R. registered against
the applicants.
5. Heard Mr.A.S.Band, learned Counsel for the applicants.
He has pointed out decision in Criminal Writ Petition No.500 of
2017, Ganesh Jaykisan Fafat vs. State of Maharashtra and submitted
that the F.I.R. registered against the applicants nowhere shows that
the applicants were playing the game of chance. At last, prayed to
quash and set aside the impugned order.
5 apl670.17.odt
6. Heard Mr.N.S.Rao, learned A.P.P. for the
Respondent/State. He has supported the impugned order.
8. Perused the F.I.R. From the perusal of the F.I.R., it is
clear that the applicants were arrested alleging that they were
playing/gambling with 52 cards. But the F.I.R. nowhere states what
type of games were played by the applicants. Unless and until it is
disclosed what type of game was played, it cannot be said that the
applicants were playing/gambling.
9. There are various games which can be played with
playing cards. One of the game is 'Rummy', which is a game of skill.
It cannot be said that the persons who are playing/gambling are
playing/gambling. Prosecution has to show that the applicants were
playing the game of chance. This Court in the case of Ganesh
Jaykisan Fafat (supra) has observed that unless and until it is shown
that the accused/applicants were playing game of chance, it cannot
be said that offence punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the
Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act is attracted. In the case of
Gajendra s/o. Shivprasad Kedia .vs. State of Maharashtra and
another, Criminal Writ Petition No.544 of 2016, this Court has
6 apl670.17.odt
observed that, without mentioning in the F.I.R. about playing of a
particular game, it cannot be said that offence under the
Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act is established. In the case of
State of Andhra Pradesh .vs. K. Satyanarayana, AIR 1968 SC 825, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the F.I.R. should disclose a
particular game, which is a game of chance.
10. From the face value of F.I.R., it does not disclose that a
particular game was played by the applicants, which was a game of
chance and therefore, offence punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of
the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act is not attracted. Hence,
in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 , State of Haryana .vs. Bhajan Lal, the F.I.R.
registered against the applicants is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Hence, we allow the application in terms of prayer clause (A) of the
application, which reads as under :.
"quash and set aside the FIR dated 09.09.2017
registered by Police Station P.S. Khaparkheda, Dist.
Nagpur, for offence u/s.4 and 5 of Maharashtra
Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 in Crime
No.0505/2017."
7 apl670.17.odt
No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
[jaiswal]
8 apl670.17.odt
