Karnataka High Court
Mr. Manjunath vs State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8343
CRL.P No. 1832 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1832 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. MR. MANJUNATH
S/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O NO. 24/1,
RANGAPPA CROSS,
PARVATHIPURA,
BENGALURU-560 004.
2. MR. PRADEEP
S/O NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O NO. AMRUTHUR VILLAGE,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572 130.
3. MR. UDAY SHETTY
Digitally signed by
S/O MR. MAHABALA SHETTY,
MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
R/O NO. 8, 6TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN,
NEAR BDA PARK, GIRINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
4. MR. AJAY
S/O SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO. 12, 4TH CROSS,
5TH MAIN, POLICE STATION ROAD,
ANANDAGIRI, HEBBAL,
BENGALURU - 560 024.
5. MR. L GANESH,
S/O MR. LAKSHMAN,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8343
CRL.P No. 1832 of 2025
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/O NO. 17, 3RD MAIN,
EESWHARINAGAR,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 086.
6. MR. YADUKUMAR
S/O MR. RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/O NO.287, MAGADI ROAD,
KOTTIGEPALYA, KARIKALLU,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
7. MR.KARIANNA
S/O MR. LINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O NO. 2ND CROSS, BAGALGUNTE,
BENGALURU-560 073.
8. MR. SHASHIKUMAR,
S/O MR. KESHAVA V,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O NO.5, 4TH CROSS,
8TH AIN, MUNESHWARA BLOCK,
P.G. HALLI, BENGALURU -560 003.
9. MR. RAJESH,
S/O MR. APPAJIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/O NO. 17/A, 8TH CROSS,
JAI MARUTHI NAGAR,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU 560 096.
10. MR. IMRAN,
S/O MR. REHAMATHULLA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O NO. 430, 1ST MAIN,
5TH CROSS, MALLATHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 056.
11. MR. MOHAMMED WAJID,
S/O MR. MOHAMMED RIYAZ,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:8343
CRL.P No. 1832 of 2025
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O NO. 44, 1ST CROSS,
PADARAYANAPURA, J.J. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 026.
12. MR. RAKESH,
S/O MR. RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO. 5/4, VASANTHAPURA BLOCK,
PALACE GUTTALLI, BENGALURU -560 003.
13. MR. PRAKASH
S/O MR. SIDDALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O NO. 75, DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 057.
14. MR. MURALI,
S/O MR. EESHWARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/O NANDITHAVARE VILLAGE,
HARIHARA TALUK,
DAVANGERE -577 601.
15. MR. NAZIN AHAMED,
S/O MR. MUSTHAQ AHAMED,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/O NO. 80, 4TH CROSS,
CHOLURUPALYA,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
16. MR. MALLIKARJUNA,
S/O MR. RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE,
SANTHEBACHANAHALLI HOBLI,
K.R. PET TALUK, MANDYA-571 426.
17. MR. SUBHASH,
S/O MR. SHIVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O MADESURU VILLAGE,
YAMANURU POST,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:8343
CRL.P No. 1832 of 2025
NAVALGUNDA TALUK,
DHARWAD-582 208.
18. MR. MADHU,
S/O MR. SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O NO. 79, M.M. QUARTERS,
NEAR KEMPAMBUDI LAKE,
CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU -560 018.
19. MR. RAVI,
S/O MR. KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O NO. 137, 1ST MAIN,
2ND CROSS, SAMPIGE LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 040.
20. MR. IMTIYAZ,
S/O MR. RIYAZ,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O MARENAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
21. MR. DEVARAJU,
S/O MR. MARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O NO. 28, SRIGANDAKAVAL,
SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU - 574 230
22. MR. GIRISH
S/O MR. GANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O NO. 46, M.M. QUARTERS,
GAVIPURAGUTTAHALLI,
K.J. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 021.
23. MR. SANTHOSH,
S/O MR. GOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O NO. 24, 7TH MAIN,
AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:8343
CRL.P No. 1832 of 2025
24. MR. ARUNA,
S/O MR. JAVAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/O NO. 22, SARASWATIPURAM,
NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 096.
25. MR. NAGESH,
S/O MR. ANKEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O NO. 282, 3RD MAIN,
5TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR,
SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 094.
26. MR. NAVEEN,
S/O MR. VASU V,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O MEDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI, NEAR TOYOTA CIRCLE,
BIDADI, RAMANAGARA-562 109.
27. MR. KRISHNA
S/O MR. SUBBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O NO. 27, 7TH CROSS,
SHIVANAHALLI, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010
28. MR. SHIVU,
OWNER, ANNAMMA RECREATION CLUB,
PLATFORM ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 020.
29. MR. PRASANNA KUMAR,
S/O MR. RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O NO.7, 4TH CROSS,
AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 079
30. ABDUL AJIZ
S/O MOHAMMED GOUSE
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:8343
CRL.P No. 1832 of 2025
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT MUNIREDDY PALYA
JAYAMAHAL ROAD, J.C NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 006.
31. RAMANNA
S/O THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO.587, 1ST CROSS, 3RD BLOCK,
KORAMANAGALA, BANGALORE-560 019.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR .V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SPECIAL ENQUIRIES WING,
CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, N.T. PET,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.M.WAHEEDA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO a)
QUASH THE FIR BEARING NO.25/2020 ALONG WITH THE
INFORMATION DATED 07.03.2020 REGISTERED WITH THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION
WHEREIN THE PETITIONERS HEREIN ARE ARRAIGNED AS
ACCUSED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 79
AND 80 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT (ANNEXED VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND A1).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:8343
CRL.P No. 1832 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
Learned HCGP accepts notice for the respondents.
2. In this petition, the petitioners seek the following
reliefs:
"a. Quash the FIR bearing No.25/2020 along
with the information dated 07.03.2020 registered
with the respondent No. 1 sheshadripuram Police
Station wherein the Petitioners herein are arraigned
as accused for the alleged offence under Section 79
and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act. (Annexed vide
Annexure-A and A1).
b. Quash Entire proceedings in the matter
bearing FIR No. 25/2020 now currently re-numbered
as CC No. 18453/2020 pending on the file of Hon'ble
Judicial Magistrate First Class (Traffic Court-I)
Mayohall, Bengaluru wherein the Petitioners herein
are arraigned as accused No. 1 to 39 for the alleged
offence under Section 79 and 80 of the Karnataka
Police Act (Annexure B).
c. Pass any order/s as deems fit to this
Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice."
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate on
07.03.2020, respondent No.2 conducted a raid of a
association/club in which the petitioners were playing 'Game of
NC: 2025:KHC:8343
Darts' and registered FIR in Cr.No.25/2020, which is presently
pending in C.C.No.18453/2020 before the trial Court, which is
assailed in the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would reiterate
the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to
the material on record, in order to point out apart from the fact
that the trial Court passed the impugned order dated
09.10.2020 taking cognizance without assigning any reason
and by passing a cryptic, laconic and unreasoned order without
any application of mind. The game, which was allegedly played
by the petitioners being a 'Game of Darts', which is essentially
and predominantly a 'Game of Skill' and not a 'Game of
Chance', the petitioners could not be incriminated for the
aforesaid offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka
Police Act as held by this Court in the following judgments:
(i) Sri Manjunath E and others vs. State of
Karnataka - Crl.P.No.8396/2017;
(ii) Sri Hasan Raj and others vs. State of
Karnataka - Crl.P.No.8395/2017; and
(iii) M/s. Legends Culture Association (R) and
another vs. State of Karnataka -
Crl.P.No.8981/2024.
NC: 2025:KHC:8343
It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned proceedings
deserves to be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that there is no
merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. In relation to offences punishable in respect of
'Game of Chance' and 'Game of Skill', this Court held as under:
(i) Sri Manjunath E's case supra:
"The petitioners have called in question the
proceedings pending before the MMTC, Bengaluru, in
C.C.No.20386/2016 for the offences punishable
under Sections 79 & 80 of the Karnataka Police Act.
2. A strong legal point raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that, the entire
proceedings is hit by Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., as
the Respondent- Police have not taken any
permission from the Magistrate to investigate the
matter and to file a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
before the Court. He contended that, even the entire
charge sheet is translated into evidence, there is no
material to show that the Game played by the
accused ie., 'Fantastic Three Dice Bowling' is a game
of chance or it is a game of skill, that fact is not
mentioned in the complaint nor it has been explained
as to how the game being played by the accused and
it is only a game of chance.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon a decision of this court reported in
Criminal Petition No.3082/2007 dated 22.10.2008,
wherein this court has reiterated that, the
investigation done by the police is with regard to
non-cognizable offences without taking permission
from the jurisdictional Magistrate as contemplated
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8343
under Section 155(2) of Cr.PC., hence, the entire
proceedings are vitiated. Even if the court has gone
to the extent of saying that, mere permission by the
Magistrate without application of judicious mind with
regard to the facts and without recording his
satisfaction with regard to the ground to believe that
non-cognizable offence is committed, even such
blanket permission is also invalid in the eye of law.
In this particular case, the entire charge sheet/FIR
does not disclose that the police have taken any
permission from the learned Magistrate to
investigate the case and to file a report. As rightly
contended by the learned counsel, though it is stated
in the charge sheet that the people in Puradamma
Recreation Association, Dynamic- 3, No.11 & 12,
Moto Rayal Arcade, Brigade Road, Bengaluru, were
playing a game with 'Fentastic-3 with the help of a
dice which has been pasted with stickers of various
brands viz., Addidas, Nike, Reebok, Joker, Fila, Puma
Stickers, but nowhere it is stated as to how the game
was played and whether it required any skill or it is a
pure game of chance. In the absence of such
elucidation of facts in the entire charge sheet, even if
the entire charge sheet is translated into evidence, it
will not give any indication whether the game alleged
to have been played is a pure game of chance or
skill. Therefore, in the absence of such materials and
in view of the above illegality during the course of
investigation, in my opinion, the proceedings are not
sustainable either in law or on facts. Hence, the
proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I
pass the following.
The petition is allowed. The proceedings
in C.C. No.20386/2016 (arising out of Crime
No.35/2016 on the file of Cubbon Park Layout
Police Station, Bengaluru) registered against
the petitioners for the offences punishable
under Sections 79 & 80 of K.P. Act, and now
pending on the file of Metropolitan magistrate
(Traffic Court-I), Bengaluru, and all
proceedings therein, insofar as the petitioners
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8343
herein concerned, are hereby quashed."
(ii) Sri Hasan Raj's case supra:
"Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned SPP-II, appearing for the
Respondent-State. Perused the records.
The petition is filed seeking quashing of
registration of FIR in Crime No.197/2017 and further
investigation thereon. The records disclose that, the
Sub-Inspector of Cubbon Park Police Station,
Bengaluru, has registered a case in NCRNo.133/2017
for the offences punishable under Sections 79 & 80
of the Karnataka Police Act (for short, 'K.P. Act') and
after obtaining permission from the Magistrate, he
started investigation for the above said offences. The
records also disclose that, the said permission
appears to have been granted. Even considering that
the permission being granted by the Magistrate, it
appears it is after the Police Officer receiving credible
information with regard to the above said offences
and going to the spot and after conducting
investigation to some extent, thereafter permission
was obtained. The learned Magistrate has simply
granted permission by mentioning a single word
'Permitted'. There is no application of mind to the
contents of the complaint or to the report submitted
by the Police Officer and no satisfaction of the
Magistrate is recorded before permitting for
investigation. Even the learned Magistrate has not
mentioned the time at which permission has been
taken and as to whether it is before or after starting-
up of investigation.
At this stage, it is worth to mention here
the observation made by this court in Crl.P
3082/2007 dated 22.10.2008 at Para-9, which reads
as under:-
"Even otherwise a perusal of the order of
the Judge, which is in manuscript written over
the representation by the Sub- Inspector of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8343
Police, does not disclose application of mind.
As noticed supra, the JMFC ought to have
applied his mind to the facts, satisfied himself
as to whether there are reasonable grounds
to believe that a non-cognizable offence is
committed and having not done so, the act is
both, arbitrary and capricious.
Therefore, it goes without saying that
before permitting for investigation, the
Magistrate has to go through the contents of
the report submitted by the Police Officer and
record his satisfaction with regard to the
grounds to believe that non-cognizable
offence is committed and it requires
investigation by the police and thereafter, he
has to permit the police to investigate the
matter. Such things are not there, sofar as
this case is concerned, except mentioning in a
word 'Permitted". It appears that the
Magistrate has not applied his judicious mind
before passing such an order.
One more thing required to be considered
by this court is that, the Police Officer has stated in
the complaint that, on 12.09.2017,one Mr.Prakash,
the Police Officer (Special Investigation Team) has
appeared before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Cubbon
Park, Bengaluru, and stated that he has visited the
Nota Royal Arcade No.158, Shop No.11 and 12,
Ground Floor, Puradamma Recreation Associates
which are the video game shops and he found that
some people are playing Video Games with the help
of machines. Except stating that, nothing has been
stated in the said complaint as to whether the said
game is a game of chance or a Game of skill and as
to how it amounts to offence under Sections 79 & 80
of the K.P. Act. Therefore, there is absolute no
information with regard to the game being played as
to whether it is a game of chance only or any skill is
required.
In the above circumstances, there are
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8343
serious lacunas in registration of case and
investigation in connection of the said case
concerned. Therefore, in my opinion, if such
investigation ordered to be continued, it would
amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, the same
is liable to be quashed. However, the Jurisdictional
Police are at liberty to follow the procedure under
Section 155(2) of Cr.PC. properly and re-investigate
the matter, if need arises, in accordance with law.
With the above observation, the petition is
disposed of."
(iii) M/s Legends Culture Association (R)'s case
supra;
"The petitioners are before this Court calling in
question registration of a crime in Crime
No.228/2024, pending before the Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Holalkere, Chitradurga District, registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80
of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
2. Heard Sri Bharath Kumar V., learned
counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Sowmya R.,
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 judgments rendered by the co-
ordinate benches 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 the case of Eranna Vs. State
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8343
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 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".
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8343
and in criminal revision petition
No.100031/2014, disposed on 03.03.2015, it is
held as follows:
"This revision petition is filed under Section
397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. by the
State, aggrieved by the order passed by the
learned Magistrate in releasing the interim
custody of the cash amount in favour of
accused No.2/respondent No.2.
2. Succinctly stated, the P.S.I. of Honnavar
Police Station charge sheeted the respondents
for the offence punishable under Section 87 of
K.P. Act. The accused were on bail. During the
raid the Investigating Officer had seized cash
of Rs.34,468/-, which is alleged to be the
gaming money. Respondent No.2 moved an
application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for
release of the said amount. The application
was contested by the prosecution. The court
below allowed the application and released the
interim custody of cash amount in favour of
the applicant /respondent No.2 on executing
an indemnity bond for Rs.50,000/- with one
surety for the likesum. However, care was
taken by the court below by directing accused
No.1 to assist the C.M.O. of the Court to take
the photographs of the currency notes at his
cost.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner -
State submits that the trial Court has lost
sight of the fact that the amount was seized
while the accused were indulged in playing
Andar Bahar. In the event prosecution
successfully proves its case, said money is
liable to be confiscated to the State
Government. The court had acted on the
fabricated documents produced by the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8343
accused No.2 projecting that the money
belong to Srikumar Roadlines, under whom he
was employed. Though the prosecution had
disputed the said document without probing
about the veracity of the document, the trial
Court has hurriedly released the interim
custody of the cash amount. In fact the said
cash amount is required to be marked in
evidence during the trial. The currency notes
are not perishable in nature and there was no
dire necessity to release the interim custody of
the cash amount in favour of second applicant.
The accused No.5 has pleaded guilty and was
imposed fine, that strengthens the case of
prosecution. In the judgment of this Court
reported in 1993 CRL.L.J. 3109 in the case of
T. Narayanaswamy vs. State and Others, it
has been held that release of money seized for
the interim custody is bad in law. Hence, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside
4. In reply, Sri Anoop G. Deshpande,
learned counsel for R1 to R4 and R6 to R7
submits that the impugned order being in the
nature of interlocutory order is not amenable
to the revision jurisdiction. Hence, the very
petition itself is not maintainable. In fact, the
money seized was not the gaming money, but
it belongs to his employer Srikumar Roadlines
and the court below having satisfied about his
contention was pleased to release the interim
custody to his possession. However, the
interest of State is protected by directing him
to execute the indemnity bond for Rs.50,000/-
with one surety for the likesum. Even the
interest of the prosecution about the
identification of the currency notes is also
taken care by directing him to assist the
C.M.O. of the Court at his cost in taking
photographs of the currency notes.
5. Respondent No.5 is served and not
represented.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8343
6. As regards the first contention about the
maintainability of the revision petition, by a
catena of judicial pronouncements of this
Court and other High Courts, it is held that the
release of interim custody of the seized
property is the nature of adjudication of the
rights of the parties in reference to the said
property. The said order is amenable for
revision jurisdiction under Section 397 of
Cr.P.C. Hence, there is no merit in the
contention that this petition is not
maintainable.
7. As regards the merit of the impugned
order is concerned, the court below being
convinced with a certificate produced by the
second applicant issued by his employer
Srikumar Roadlines and also daily enquiry
report dated 14.11.2012 has inferred that he
is an employee of the said Roadlines. Keeping
open the question of the ownership of the
seized property / cash amount in question the
court below has ordered interim custody by
taking the photographs of currency notes and
also by calling upon the applicant to execute
the indemnity bond of Rs.50,000/- with one
surety for the likesum.
8. Under the circumstances, I hold that the
impugned has not prejudiced the case of the
State and it is not illegal. The grounds urged
by the State lacks merits and does not call for
interference of this Court. Accordingly, petition
is rejected".
In the light of the afore-extracted judgments
rendered by the co-ordinate benches 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
petitioner.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8343
4. For the reasons aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned Crime No.228/2024,
pending before the Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Holalkere, Chitradurga District, stands
quashed.
I.A.No.1/2024 also stands disposed, as a
consequence."
7. As held by this Court in the aforesaid judgments, in
the event of a person participates/plays a 'Game of Skill', he
cannot be said to have committed offences punishable under
Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, which are
applicable only to 'Game of Chance' and not to 'Game of Skill'.
8. In the instant case, the material on record discloses
that the petitioners, who were playing 'Game of Darts' which is
a 'Game of Skill' and not a 'Game of Chance' at the time of
raid, cannot be said to have committed the aforesaid offences
under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, which
only relates to 'Game of chance' and the same are not
applicable to a 'Game of Darts', which is essentially and
predominantly a 'Game of Skill'.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8343
9. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered
opinion that the impugned proceedings, qua the petitioners,
deserve to be quashed.
10. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.18453/2020, arising
out of FIR in Crime No.25/2020 registered by
the 1st respondent - Police, pending on the file
of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Traffic
Court-I), Mayohall, Bengaluru for the offences
punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the
Karnataka Police Act, insofar as the petitioners
are concerned, are hereby quashed.
SD/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
VM
