Bombay High Court
Shashank S/O Arun Naik vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Pusad ... on 18 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12509-DB
925.apl.1758.2025.judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1758 OF 2025
1. Shashank s/o Arun Naik,
Aged about 35 Years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Vivekanand Colony,
Shrirampur, Pusad City,
District Yavatmal.
2. Pramod s/o Zita Rathod,
Aged about 36 Years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Near Zilla Parishad School,
Vivekanand Society,
Shrirampur, Pusad City,
District Yavatmal.
3. Ashish s/o. Premsingh Pawar,
Aged about 34 Years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o Ward No.3,
Dankeshwar Nagar, Post Pardi,
Pusad City, District Yavatmal. .... APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Pusad City,
District Yavatmal.
2. Harshwardhan Bije,
Aged about 42 Years,
Occupation : Assistant Police Inspector,
R/o C/o Police Station Pusad City,
District Yavatmal. .... NON-APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------
Ms. Kirti Deshpande, Advocate with Mr. A. D. Deshmukh,
Advocate for the applicants.
Ms. Sneha Dhote, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 18/11/2025
925.apl.1758.2025.judgment.odt
(2)
ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.]
1. Heard.
2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the
learned Counsel for the parties.
3. This is an application for quashing of the First
Information Report bearing No. 0542/2025 dated 02.10.2025
registered with Police Station Pusad City, District Yavatmal for
the offence punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the
Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act.
4. The First Information Report (for short 'FIR') alleges
that the non-applicant No.2 received a discreet information that
some persons are playing the game of '3 Cards' at a building
situated at Dubewar Layout located adjoining to Durgamata
Mandal at Pusad City. The Officers of the non-applicant No.1
Police Station visited the spot. They met the President of
Durgamata Mandal, who informed that he had made
arrangements of private premises for gambling. Furthermore,
when the Officers of the non-applicant No.1 approached the
building, the accused persons attempted to flee away.
Thereafter, the police personnel entered in the premises wherein
the applicants were found and some playing cards and cash were
also found. It is on this basis that the FIR in question was
lodged, which is challenged in the present application.
925.apl.1758.2025.judgment.odt
5. We have heard Ms. Kirti Deshpande, learned counsel
for the applicants and Ms. Sneha Dhote, learned APP for
non-applicant No.1/State.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants states that the
applicants have no role to play in the commission of the present
crime and have been falsely implicated in the present crime. It
is her submission that, even if the allegations in the FIR are
taken at its face value, no offence punishable under Sections 4
and 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act can be
made out, therefore her submission that the FIR and the criminal
prosecution lodged is an abuse of the process of Court and liable
to be quashed by this Court in its inherent jurisdiction.
7. The learned APP, however, while opposing the
contention advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants,
she states that, admittedly, the applicants were found on the
said premises and the playing cards and cash were also found on
the said premises. She submits that, in that view of the matter,
there is a prima facie case against the present applicants.
8. As per the contention of the FIR, the applicants before
this Court were found on the spot playing some cards and also
found along with cash. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that though the applicants were found on the spot, there
is no material to show that no such averment was made in the
925.apl.1758.2025.judgment.odt
FIR that the applicants were in fact, indulged in playing cards
and thereby involved in the offence of betting.
9. Sections 4 and 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of
Gambling Act read as under:-
"4. "Place" defined. Keeping common gaming-house.-
[(1)] Whoever,-
(a) [opens, keeps as uses any house, room or place],
for the purpose, of a common gaming house,
(b) being the owner or occupier of any such house,
room or place knowingly or wilfully permits
same to be opened, occupied, kept or used by any
other person for the purpose aforesaid.
(c) has the care or management of, or in any manner
assists in conducting the business of, or any such
house, room, or place opened, occupied, kept
or used for the purpose aforesaid,
(d) advances or furnishes money for the purposes of
gaming with persons frequenting any such house, room or
place,
[shall, on conviction, be punished] with imprisonment
[which may extend to two years] [and may also be
punished with fine].
Provided that,-
(a) for a first offence such imprisonment shall
not be less than [three months and fine shall
not be less than five hundred rupees;]
(b) for a second offence such imprisonment shall not be
less than [six months and fine shall not be less than one
thousand rupees; and
(c) for a third or subsequent offence such imprisonment
shall not be less than [one year and fine shall not be
less than two thousand rupees.]]
925.apl.1758.2025.judgment.odt
[(2) Nothing contained in the provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958, or in sub-sections (1), (4), (5) and (6) of
section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall apply to
any person convicted under this section.]
5. Gaming in common gaming-houses
[Whoever is found in any common gaming-house gaming or
present for the purpose of gaming, [shall on conviction be
punished] with imprisonment which may extend to six
months [and may also be punished with fine]:
Provided that-
(a) for a first offence such imprisonment shall not be
less than one month and fine shall not be less
than two hundred rupees;
(b) for a second offence such imprisonment shall
not be less than three months and fine shall
not be less than two hundred rupees; and
(c) for a third or subsequent offence such
imprisonment shall not be less than six
months and fine shall not be less than two
hundred rupees.]
Any person found in any common gaming-house
during any gaming therein shall be presumed until
the contrary [is proved], to have been there for the
purpose of gaming."
10. A meaningful reading of the above provisions to reveal
that the statutory provisions take into its compass every activity
which is not limited to the accused persons actually
playing/gambling at the time of raid. In the present matter, the
applicants are found on the premises with some playing cards
and cash. Even though the FIR does not allege that the
applicants were involved and playing while the raid was
925.apl.1758.2025.judgment.odt
conducted. In our view and more particularly in view of the fact
and settled law that the FIR cannot be an encyclopedia and is a
primary report which would lead the investigating agency to
investigate the matter, we are of the considered view that, this is
not a case where inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure can be exercised.
11. Learned counsel for the applicants places reliance on
judgment reported by this Court in 2017 SCC OnLine Bom
4176 [Gajendra s/o Shivprasad Kedia Vs. State of
Maharashtra through P. S. Rajapeth, District Amravati and
another] and 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 832 [Jaywant
Balkrishna Sail and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others]. However, after careful perusal of this judgment, it is
revealed that in the said matter the applicants therein were
found gambling in social club which prompted the Division Bench
of this Hon'ble Court to quash the FIR registered therein. The
facts in the present case can be distinguished as admittedly the
applicants are not found in a social club. In that view of the
matter, we are of the opinion that at this stage prima facie case
is triable one against the applicants.
12. Thus, there is prima facie material on record to
continue the prosecution as against the applicants. In that view
of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the present
925.apl.1758.2025.judgment.odt
application at this stage. Accordingly, we proceed to pass
following order:
ORDER
(i) The application is rejected.
(ii) Liberty is granted to the applicants
to avail appropriate legal remedy after filing
of the charge sheet.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J)
Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/11/2025 17:12:37
