Bombay High Court
Shubham Ghanshyam Chavre vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Umarkhed And ... on 6 November, 2025
(1) 931 apl 578-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.578 OF 2022
Shubham Ghanshyam Chavre
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra through P.S.O., P.S.Umarkhed and another
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.P. Kariya, Advocate for applicant
Shri N.H. Joshi, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.2
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 06.11.2025
By this application, the applicant is seeking
quashing and setting aside of the First Information Report
and charge-sheet as well as proceedings arising out of the
First Information Report No.0368/2019, registered with
Police Station Umarkhed, under Section 12(A) of the
Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887.
2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of
the application are as under :
The crime is registered on the basis of a report
lodged by the Police Official Shri Sandip Sardarsing Thakur,
B.No. 2020, on an allegation that he was deputed at
Umarkhed Police Station, and they received secret
information that some people were involved in gambling.
(2) 931 apl 578-2022
Therefore, he, along with the other raiding staff and
panchas, visited the said spot and intercepted nine persons
found playing gambling. On the basis of the said report
Police have registered the crime against the present
applicant.
3. After registration of the crime the spot
panchanama was drawn from the applicants. Amounts are
recovered as well as the playing cards are also recovered.
After completion of the investigation, the investigating
officer has filed the charge-sheet.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant who
submitted that to attract the offence punishable under
Section 12 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act,
the prosecution has to establish that the applicants were
involved in playing a game of a scheme or game of chance.
Nothing is on record to show that they were found playing
any game of scheme. Therefore, no offence is made out
against the present applicant. In support of his contention,
he placed reliance on Kundalik Shivaji Kolekar and another
Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2018 All.M.R.(Cri) 1844.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel, Additional Public
Prosecutor submitted that at this stage, whether there is a
prima facie material or not is to be looked into. The
ingredients of the offence in view of Section 12(a) of the
Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, that A
police officer may apprehend without warrant any person
(3) 931 apl 578-2022
found [gaming] [or reasonably suspected to be gaming], in
any public street, [or thoroughfare, or in any place to which
the public have or are permitted to have access] [or in any
race-course], thus he submitted that in view of Section 12
Clause (a) if a person found gaming at a public place or
suspected to be found gaming in any public street that is
sufficient to attract the offence punishable under Section 12
of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act.
6. The recitals of the First Information Report at
this stage sufficiently show that the applicants were not only
found gaming but the relevant material, i.e. playing cards
as well as some amounts were also seized from them and
they were found playing cards at the street, where the public
is having access. Thus, prima facie material is there, and
therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.
7. Before adverting to the submissions made by the
learned Counsel for the applicant, it is necessary to
understand the definition of gaming. The definition of
gaming is given under Section 3 which reads as under :
"3. In this Act "gaming" includes wagering or
betting except wagering or betting upon (a horse
race, or dog race) when such wagering or betting
takes place-
(a) on the day on which such race is to run, and
(b) in an enclosure which the licensee of the race-
course, on which such race is to be run, has set
apart for the purpose under the terms of the
(4) 931 apl 578-2022
licence issued under section 4 of the Bombay
Race-Courses Licensing Act, 1912, [or as the case
may be, of the Maharashtra Dog Race Courses
Licensing Act, 1976] in respect of such race-
course [or in any other place approved by the
State Government in this behalf,] and
(c) between any individual in person, being
present in the enclosure [or approved place] on
the one hand, and such licensee or other person
licensed by such licensee in terms of the aforesaid
licence on the other hand or between any number
of individuals in person in such manner and by
such contrivance as may be permitted by such
licence;
but does not include a lottery."
The explanation further says that "the
expression "instruments of gaming" includes any
article used [or intended to be used] as a subject
or means of gaming, [any document used] [or
intended to be used] as a register or record or
evidence of any gaming] [the proceeds of any
gaming, and any winnings or prizes in money or
otherwise distributed or intended to be
distributed in respect of any gaming.]"
8. Section 6 entitles the police officer to enter,
search in gaming houses.
9. Section 9 deals with proof of playing for money,
and it deals with, it shall not be necessary, in order to
convict a person of any offence against any of the provisions
of sections 4 and 5, to prove that any person found was
(5) 931 apl 578-2022
playing for any money, wager, or stake that proof of playing
for money is not required.
10. The Division Bench of this Court has already
considered these provisions in the judgment of Kundalik
Shivaji Kolekar (supra), referred by the learned Counsel for
the applicant. Perusal of these provisions would make it
clear that the basic element of wagering and betting has to
be there. Further, the establishment for being branded as a
Common Gaming House has to be used for the purpose of
such Gaming, and a person needs to be found in such
Common Gaming House for the purpose of Gaming. The
ingredients of the offence under Section 12 only require a
person to be found gaming at a public place that is at public
street, the place at which the public have or are permitted to
have access. At this stage, the recitals of the First
Information Report sufficiently show that the applicants
were found playing a game or found gaming when the raid
was conducted, and they were found along with the articles
which used for gaming.
11. In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs.
Bhajanlal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, we are
guided by the parameters laid down in paragraph No. 102 of
judgment, and more particularly Clause 1, 3 and 7 thereof :
"102.................
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
(6) 931 apl 578-2022
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) ...
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or com- plaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) ....
(5) ...
(6) ...
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."
12. Relying upon the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, if the facts of the present case are
considered, admittedly, at this stage, prima facie material is
there on the basis of which the applicant can be tried, and
therefore, the application being devoid of merits deserves to
be rejected. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following
order :
ORDER
The application is rejected.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Jayashree..
