Karnataka High Court
Suresh vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44080
CRL.P No. 10274 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. 10274 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SURESH
S/O BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT: NO.718, 16TH CROSS,
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
SRINIVASA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
2. KRISHNEGOWDA,
S/O NANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/A: NO.41, 6TH CROSS,
BEML LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI BENGALURU - 560079
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...PETITIONERS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI ADARSHA R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BYADARAHALLI PS,
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44080
CRL.P No. 10274 of 2024
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. G.P.RAJU,
MAJOR IN AGE,
POLICE INSPECTOR - CCB,
NT PETE,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., (528 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 14/07/2022 PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
RURAL, BANGALORE, IN CC NO. 15724/2022 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 79 AND 80 OF THE
KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963, BASED ON THE CHARGE
SHEET FILED BY THE R1 / BYADARAHALLI PS AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question
proceedings in C.C.No.15724/2022, pending before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru, registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the
Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
NC: 2024:KHC:44080
2. Heard Sri Adarsha R., learned counsel for the
petitioners and Smt. Rashmi Patil, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgment
rendered by this Court in W.P.No.2227/2024, disposed on
13.06.2024, which reads as follows:
"The petitioners are before this Court calling in
question proceedings in Spl.C.No.2403/2021 pending
before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC,
Srirangapatna, Mandya District, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 269, 271 and 149
of the IPC and Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka
Police Act, 1963.
2. Heard Sri D. Basavarajappa, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Sri Harish Ganapathi, learned
High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
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:
"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
NC: 2024:KHC:44080
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 that a
NC: 2024:KHC:44080
game of skill would not be held 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 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. For the reasons aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.15724/2022, pending
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru
Rural, Bengaluru, qua the petitioners, stand
quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
NVJ
