Karnataka High Court
Mohan C vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44280
CRL.P No. 9838 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9838 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAN C
S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.110, 14TH MAIN,
HANUMANTHANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 050
2. KRISHNA D.N.,
S/O NANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 41, 6TH CROSS,
BML LAYOUT,
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079
Digitally signed 3. SHIVU M
by NAGAVENI S/O MADESHA
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
COURT OF R/AT NO.18/2, 5TH MAIN,
KARNATAKA 3RD CROSS,
KASTURIBA NAGAR,
CHAMARAJAPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018
4. SURESH M.,
S/O BASAVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.706, 7TH MAIN,
6TH CROSS,
SRINIVASANAGARA,
BSK 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44280
CRL.P No. 9838 of 2024
5. JAISHANKAR
S/O LAKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.254, 1ST MAIN,
CHAMARAJPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018
6. GURU G
S/O BOGANANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.137,
PETE STREET,
MALAVALLI TOWN,
MANDYA - 571 430
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ADARSHA R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HANUMANTHANAGAR PS,
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. SUNIL KADDI PSI,
MAJOR IN AGE,
HANUMANTHANAGAR PS,
ASHOK NAGAR, BSK 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 050
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNNS) OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TAKING
COGNIZANCE DATED 28.11.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT BENGALURU IN
C.C.NO.11076/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 79,80 OF KARNATAKA
POLICE ACT, 1963 BASED ON THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1/HANUMANTHANAGAR P.S.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:44280
CRL.P No. 9838 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.Adarsha R., learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Sri. B.N.Jagadeesha, the learned Additional
State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
2. The petitioners are before this Court calling in
question the proceedings in C.C.No.11076/2023 pending on the
file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Bangalore,
for offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the
Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the
judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.2227/2024,
disposed of on 13.06.2024, wherein this Court has held as
follows:
"3. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the issue in the case at hand stands
covered by the judgment rendered by the
co-ordinate bench of this Court in
Crl.P.No.100877/2014, disposed on 13.06.2014,
which read as follows:
NC: 2024:KHC:44280
"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
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
NC: 2024:KHC:44280
that a game of skill would not beheld to be
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".
(Emphasis supplied)
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. In the light of the order passed by this Court
(supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Petition is allowed; and
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.11076/2023 pending on
the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic
Court, Bangalore, qua the petitioners, stand
quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
KG
