member(s) or the guest(s) of the
member(s), to make use of its premises for
the purpose of playing any kind of game(s)
or recreational activities.
(iv) The petitioner shall not permit any activity
by any of its member(s), by indulging in
acts of amusement, falling within the
definition of Ss.2(14) & 2(15) of the Act and
shall not permit any game(s) of chance as
per Explanation (II) of Sub-section (7) of
Section 2 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
The member(s) shall not be allowed to
play any kind of game(s) with stakes or
make any profit or gain out of the game(s)
played.
(v) The petitioner shall put proper mechanism
in place and shall ensure that no game(s) is
played in any unlawful manner by the
member(s). If the police find that game(s)
played is contrary to any law and in violation
of the settled practice, it is open to them to
take action against petitioner and the
offenders, in accordance with law.
(vi) The jurisdictional police shall have liberty to
visit premises periodically and/or on receipt
of any information about any unlawful
activity being carried on in the petitioner's
premises.
(vii) The respondents are directed not to
interfere with the lawful recreational
activities carried on by the members of the
petitioner - Club / Association.
(viii) It is made clear that this order would not
come in the way of the jurisdictional police
invoking the provisions of the Act and taking
action in accordance with law, if the
member(s) of the petitioner are found to
have indulged in any unlawful or immoral
activities."
While disposing the petition, certain directions were
issued. The directions were that club would issue
identity cards to all its members and produce them
as and when called upon by the police and the club
should put proper mechanism in place to ensure
that no games are played in any unlawful manner
and the Police were permitted to conduct routine
visits. Despite this, on an allegation that the
petitioners' recreation club was being repeatedly
harassed by the Police, they invoked the contempt
jurisdiction of this Court in C.C.C.No.894 of 2021.
The contempt comes to be disposed of by the
following order:
4. Sri. A.S. Ponnanna, learned Senior
Counsel for complainant pointed out that this
Court while disposing of the writ petition
specifically instructed the police not to
interfere with the lawful recreational
activities carried on by the members of the
petitioner-Club/Association. Thereby, the
Police in the name of periodical visitation
have interfered with the lawful activities of
the Association. Therefore, it is a fit case to
initiate contempt proceedings and sought to
allow the petition.
5. Per contra, Sri. V.Sreenidhi,
learned AGA reiterating the objections filed
"(vi) The jurisdictional police shall
have liberty to visit premises
periodically and/or on receipt of any
information about any unlawful activity
being carried on in the petitioner's
premises;
NC: 2025:KHC:1750
(vii) xxx xxx xxx
(viii) It is made clear that this
order would not come in the way of the
jurisdictional police invoking the
provisions of the Act and taking action in
accordance with law, if the member(s) of
the petitioner are found to have
indulged in any unlawful or immoral
activities."
and submits that in terms of the directions issued by
this Court, jurisdictional police have liberty to visit the
premises periodically and/or on receipt of any
information about any unlawful activity being carried
on in the petitioner's premises and has specifically
invited our attention to para 5 of the objections
that," respondent-Police at no point of time, have
violated any law or any of the orders passed by this
court. The action of the Respondent-Police is in the
usual course of the Police conducting their official
business to ensure that no unlawful activities are
being done within the premises of the Complainant's
Club." Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the
contempt petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for
the parties, it is an un-disputed fact that, this Court
while disposing of the writ petition No.55798/2017 on
13-12-2017 issued 08 directions as stated supra.
Direction Nos. 6,7 and 8 should read conjointly
and harmoniously. After reading the said directions, it
clearly depict that the police officers/ respondents
should not interfere with the lawful recreational
activities carried on by the members of the
petitioner's Club. At the same time, police shall have
a liberty to visit the premises periodically and or on
receipt of any information about unlawful activity
being carried on in the petitioners' premises. This
Court also made clear that the observations made or
NC: 2025:KHC:1750
directions issued at 1 to 7 would not come in the
way of the jurisdictional police invoking the
provisions of the Act and taking action in
accordance with law, if the members of petitioner's
association found to have indulged in any unlawful
or immoral activities. Therefore, the contention of the
learned Senior counsel that this Court granted
injunction restraining the accused not to interfere
with the lawful recreational activities cannot be
accepted. The fact remains that, if the unlawful
activities carried on by the members of petitioner's
association, a check is necessary, thereby, direction
Nos. 7 and 8 were incorporated reserving liberty to
the police.
7. The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Indiranagar, has filed an affidavit on oath before this
Court against oath filed by the complainant and
specifically stated that allegations made in the
contempt are false and Hoysala team visited the
club on 25- 10-2021 only to ensure that no unlawful
activities are being conducted within the premises of
complainant's-Club and police have not violated any
conditions of the Court. The police in usual course
visited the premises. In fact, in para-3, police
reiterated the action is in accordance with law to
ensure that no unlawful activities are being carried
out within the premises of the complainant's
recreation club and thereby there is no violation
made by the accused as alleged by the
complainant.
8. It is made clear that the police can
visit premises of the complainant's club periodically to
check any unlawful activity being carried on in the
premises. Merely because the present petition is
filed, the police cannot take vengeance and initiate
proceedings as stated in para 6 of the objections.
NC: 2025:KHC:1750
The Police are the protectors of law to ensure
that there should not be any unlawful activities not
only among the members of the Club or general
public they should act like members of civilized
society and they should not take vengeance."
The Division Bench also holds that the Police can
visit the premises of complainant's club periodically
to check any unlawful activity. It is said that the
Police did not stop interference and harassment.
The petitioners' club again invokes the contempt
jurisdiction of this Court in C.C.C.No.842 of 2023.
Recording the submission of the Additional
Government Advocate, the Division Bench disposed
of the petition by the following order:
"ORDER
1. This contempt petition is filed alleging
wilful disobedience of the order dated 13.12.2017
passed by a learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.55798/2017. The learned counsel for the
complainant submits that the accused particularly,
the police officials have closed down the premises
of the complainant.
2. The learned Additional Government
Advocate invited our attention to the affidavit
dated 21.09.2023 filed by accused No.3-Sri
Govardhan, Police Inspector, Indiranagar Police
Station, Bengaluru and submits that the premises
of the complainant is never shut off by the
accused; the accused visits the premises on
routine basis as directed by the learned Single
Judge, vide order dated 13.12.2017 in
W.P.No.55798/2017 wherein clause (vi) clearly
states that the jurisdictional police is granted
liberty to visit premises periodically and or on
receipt of any information about any unlawful
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1750
activity being carried out in the complainant's
premises.
In view of these factual aspects, in our
opinion, nothing survives for consideration in the
contempt petition and the same is accordingly
disposed off. Notice is discharged."
The petitioners are again back to the doors of this
Court, in the subject petition, on the same song of
harassment by the Police. The crime now is
registered on 11-06-2024. Since the entire issue
has triggered from the registration of crime, I
deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It
reads as follows:
"gÀªÀjUÉ,
¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ¸À¨ï - E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï,
EA¢gÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ.
EAzÀ,
²æà ¸ÀÄzÀ±Àð£ï ºÉZï.« ¦.L.
EA¢gÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ.
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,
«µÀAiÀÄ:- EA¢gÁ£ÀUÀgÀ oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À 80 Cr
gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ £ÀA:233. L±ÀéAiÀÄð CA¨Áå¸ÉqÀgï
JA§ PÀlÖqÀzÀ°è mɯïgÀÆA JA§ ºÉ¸Àj£À
¥ÉÇÃPÀgïPÀè¨ï£À°è CPÀæªÄÀ dÆeÁl £ÀqɸÄÀ wÛgÄÀ ªÀªÀgÀ
ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÄÀ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä PÉÆÃj.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1750
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ. £Á£ÀÄ F ¢ªÀ¸À
¢£ÁAPÀ:11.06.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 11-30 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è oÁuÉAiÀÄ°ègÄÀ ªÁUÀ
gÉÆûvï wªÁj ºÁUÀÆ CAmÉÆä «£ÀAiÀiï PÀĪÀiÁgï ºÁUÀÆ
EvÀgÀgÀÄ EA¢gÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À 80
CrgÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ £ÀA: 233, L±ÀéAiÀÄð CA¨Áå¸ÉqÀgï JA§ PÀlÖqÀzÀ°è
n¯ïÖ gÀÆA JA§ ºÉ¸Àj£À ¥ÉÇÃPÀgï PÀè¨ï C£ÀÄß £ÀqɸÄÀ wÛzÄÀ Ý, ¸ÀzÀj PÀè¨ï
UÉ PÁ¯ÉÃeï ºÀÄqÀÄUÀgÄÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀÄĪÀPÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß ºÀtzÀ D«ÄµÀ¢AzÀ
DPÀ¶ð¹, CªÀgÆ É A¢UÉ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß ¸ÉÃj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ
¯Á¨sÀPÉÆÌøÀÌgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉaÑ£À ºÀtUÀ½¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV ¸ÀzÀj n¯ïÖ gÀÆA
C£ÀÄß dÆf£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÁßV ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ dÆeÁlªÀ£ÄÀ ß £ÀqɸÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ
§UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ ¨sÁwäzÁs gÀjAzÀ ªÀiÁ»w §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ
ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß RavÀ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî¯ÁV ªÉÄîÌAqÀ gÉÆûvï wªÁj
ºÁUÀÆ CAmÉÆä «£ÀAiÀiï PÀĪÀiÁgï ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀgÄÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ
ºÀtzÀ D«ÄµÀÀ vÉÆÃj¹ CªÀjUÉ n¯ïÖ gÀÆA UÉ ¥ÀæªÉñÀ ¤Ãr CªÀjAzÀ
D£ï¯ÉÊ£ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ n¯ïÖ gÀÆA£À ««zsÀ CPËAmïUÀ½UÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß
¥ÀqÉzÀÄ PÀ«ÄõÀ£ï ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀªÁV PÀrvÀUÆ É ½¹ ºÀtzÀ
§zÀ°UÉ ««zsÀ ªÀiË®åPÉÌ mÉÆÃPÀ£ïUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¤Ãr E¹àÃmï J¯ÉUÀ¼À
ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ CzÀȵÀÖzÀ dÆeÁlªÁr¸ÀÄvÀÛ CzÀgÀ°è UÉzÝÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ½UÉ
ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß D£ï¯ÉÊ£ï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ«ÄµÀ£ï
ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß n¯ïÖ gÀÆA£À ««zsÀ ¨ÁåAPï CPËAmïUÀ¼À°è
¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj dÆeÁlªÀ£ÀÄß
£ÀqɸÀ®Ä mÉç¯ïUÀ¼ÄÀ , E¹àÃmï PÁqïðUÀ¼ÄÀ , mÉÆÃPÀ£ïUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ
EvÀgÉ dÆeÁlzÀ ¥ÀjPÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸ÀÄwÛgÄÀ ªÀÅzÀÄ w½zÀÄ
§A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj dÆeÁlªÁqÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀªÀgÀ DzsÁgï PÁqïð.
¥Áå£ï PÁqïð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÁåAPï CPËAmï £ÀA§gï - UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ
UÁæºÀPÀgÀ ¨ÁåAPï DPËAmï ¤AzÀ ºÀt ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ
ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½zÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæªÄÀ ÄRªÁV AiÀÄĪÀPÀgÄÀ D£ï¯ÉÊ£ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ
n¯ïÖ gÀÆA£À DPËAmï UÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹ CzÀPÌÉ ¸ÀªÄÀ £ÁzÀ
(PÀ«ÄõÀ£ï ºÉÆgÀvÄÀ ¥Àr¹) mÉÆÃPÀ£ïUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¥ÀqÉzÄÀ . ¸ÀzÀj
mÉÆÃPÀ£ïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÀtzÀgÆ À ¥ÀzÀ°è D mÉç¯ïUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÀtªÁV PÀnÖ
E¹àÃmï J¯ÉUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ: CzÀȵÀÖzÀ dÆeÁlªÁqÀÄwÛgÄÀ vÁÛgÉ.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÄÀ ¥ÉÇÃPÀgï UÉêÀiï ºÉ¸Àj£À°è n¯ïÖ
gÀÆAC£ÀÄß dÆf£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÁßV ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj dÆeÁlzÀ
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è CzÀȵÀÖzÀ dÆeÁlªÁqÀÄvÀÛ CPÀæªÄÀ ªÁV ºÀt ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£É
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1750
ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÄÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ dÆeÁlzÀ°è
vÉÆqÀVgÀĪÀ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀPÌÉ ¸ÀºÀPÀj¸ÀÄwÛgÄÀ ªÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À ªÉÄïÉ
PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃw PÀæªÄÀ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ,
vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹,
¸À»/-
(¸ÀÄzÀ±Àð£ï ºÉZï.«)
¥Éǰøï E£ïì¥ÉPÖÀgï,
EA¢gÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÉǰøïoÁuÉ.
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ."
This becomes the crime in Crime No.155 of 2024 for
the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80
of the Act. They are admittedly non-cognizable
offences. Therefore, the nod of the learned
Magistrate was necessary. The learned
Magistrate has permitted registration of crime and
it is only then the crime comes to be registered.
10. A perusal at the complaint would
nowhere indicate that the petitioners have indulged
in unlawful activities in the club. The complaint only
narrates that at the time of conduct of inspection by
the police what was seen was that persons who
were in the club were not members of the club
and tokens were taken in exchange of ₹3,000/-
and certain cash of ₹9000/- was seized and from
mobile phones the transaction happened for several
thousands. The complaint though narrates these
factors, the narration would run counter to the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1750
judgments passed by the constitutional Courts where
these games of Poker and Rummy are held to be
games of skill. A Division Bench of this Court in
ALL INDIA GAMING FEDERATION v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA2, holds that a game of chance and a
game of skill though are not poles, but are too
distinct legal concepts of constitutional significance.
The distinction lies in the amount of skill involved in
the games. The Division Bench observes as follows:
"... ... ...
7. Note: The collective ratio unmistakably
emerging from all the decisions mentioned in
paragraphs IX & X above put succinctly is : A game
of chance and a game of skill although are not
poles asunder, they are two distinct legal concepts of
constitutional significance. The distinction lies in the
amount of skill involved in the games. There may not
be a game of chance which does not involve a
scintilla of skill and similarly, there is no game of
skill which does not involve some elements of
chance. Whether a game is, a 'game of chance' or
a 'game of skill', is to be adjudged by applying the
Predominance Test: a game involving substantial
degree of skill, is not a game of chance, but is only
a game of skill and that it does not cease to be
one even when played with stakes. As a corollary
of this, a game not involving substantial degree of
skill, is not a game of skill but is only a game of
chance and therefore falls within the scope of Entry
34 in the State List.
2022 SCC OnLine Kar 435
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1750
In a later judgment, a Division Bench of the High Court of
Allahabad in DM GAMING PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE
OF U.P.3 has held as follows:
"... ... ....
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, to buttress his arguments, has
relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court passed in State of Andhra Pradesh v.
K.S. Sathyanarayana, AIR 1968 SC 825 as well
as in the judgment of Madras High Court
passed in Junglee Games India Private
Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu (W.P. No.
18022 of 2020) and stated that games of
Poker an Rummy are the games involving
skill and not gambling. He further submits
that the impugned order dated January 24,
2024 does not address any of the issues and
simpliciter denies the permission for such
gaming unit on the basis of surmises and
conjectures that there may be possibility of
peace and harmony being disrupted and
gambling (jua-satta) taking place.
4. In light of the fact that gambling is
prohibited, the permission was denied without
going into the aspect that card games i.e.
Poker and Rummy are absolutely a game of
skill and not gambling.
5. Upon considering the various
aspects, we are of the view that the officer
concerned should look into the aspect after
examining the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme
Court and various High Courts on the said
issue. Denial of the permission only on the
basis of the clairvoyance of the officer
concerned cannot be a ground that can be
sustained. Hard facts are required to be
2024 SCC OnLine All 5009
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1750
brought on record by the officer to deny the
permission for carrying out the recreational
gaming activities.
6. Needless to mention that the
permission being granted by itself would not
prevent the authorities concerned to check
on the aspect of gambling that may take
place at a particular place and if the same
happens, necessary action under law can
always be taken by the authorities.
7. In light of the above observation,
the authority concerned is directed to revisit
the issue and pass a reasoned order after
granting an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner within a period of six weeks from
date."
11. On a coalesce of the judgments rendered by
the Division Bench and the coordinate Benches of
this Court and the Division Bench of the High Court
of Allahabad what would unmistakably emerge is,
the game of Poker is a game of skill and the
interference by the Police cannot lead to harassment.
The Division Bench while disposing of C.C.C.No.894
of 2021 observes that the Police who are the
protectors of law should ensure that there is no
unlawful activities carried on, not only among the
members of the club or general public, they should
act like members of civilized society and should
not become a tool of wrecking vengeance. Therefore,
I deem it appropriate to obliterate the impugned
crime finding no ingredients of Sections 79 and 80
of the Act, as held by the coordinate Benches of
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1750
this Court, in the case at hand as well. However,
all the directions that have been issued in the case of
the petitioners from time to time, as and when
they have knocked at the doors of this Court in
the respective petitions, be followed in letter and
spirit. No shackles can be put on the hands of the
Police not to visit the recreation club even if they are
in receipt of credible information about unlawful
activities in the club. Reserving their right and
finding nothing of that sort at this juncture in the
impugned proceedings, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order under Section 155(2) of
Cr.P.C. dated 11-06-2024 passed by
the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic
Court-I, Bangalore in NCR No.313 of
2024 and the FIR registered in Crime
No.155 of 2024 stands quashed.
(iii) It is made clear that all the directions
issued by the respective Benches which
dealt with the cases of the petitioners
and the like are to be followed in letter
and spirit by the petitioners."
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1750
3. Learned Additional SPP who has appeared
physically would seek to dispute the facts obtaining in the
case at hand qua the application of the judgment and he
does not in a position to dispute what is held by this Court
in the aforesaid judgment.
4. In that light, I deem it appropriate to grant the
same relief as is granted in Crl.P. No.5658/2024. For the
aforesaid reasons, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
(iv) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(v) The FIR in Devanahalli P.S. on the file of
the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli and
complaint in Crime No.56/2024 at
Annexure-A registered by the second
respondent Police for the offences
punishable under Sections 79, 80 and 103
of the Police Act stands quashed.
(vi) It is made clear that all the directions
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1750
issued by the respective Benches which
dealt with the cases of the petitioners and
the like are to be followed in letter and
spirit by the petitioners.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
VNP/CT-ASC
