2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate on
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would reiterate
the Vice President of M/s. Power Recreation House where the
committed. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
(i) Sri Manjunath E and others vs. State of
Karnataka - Crl.P.No.8396/2017;
NC: 2025:KHC:22341
HC-KAR
(ii) M/s. Legends Culture Association (R) and
another vs. State of Karnataka -
Crl.P.No.8981/2024.
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. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that
the petitioner is only the Vice President of M/s. Power
Recreation House wherein the alleged offence is said to have
committed. This being the case, the petitioner herein could not
be incriminated in the said offences.
7. Further, 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
NC: 2025:KHC:22341
HC-KAR
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
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
NC: 2025:KHC:22341
HC-KAR
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.
ORDER
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
herein concerned, are hereby quashed."
(ii) 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.,
NC: 2025:KHC:22341
HC-KAR
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
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
NC: 2025:KHC:22341
HC-KAR
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".
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
NC: 2025:KHC:22341
HC-KAR
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
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
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22341
HC-KAR
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.
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
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22341
HC-KAR
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.
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."
8. As held by this Court in the aforesaid judgments, in
the event of a person participates/plays a 'Game of Skill', he
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22341
HC-KAR
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'.
9. In the instant case, the material on record discloses
that the respondents have not ascertained as to whether the
petitioner was playing a 'Game of Skill' or a 'Game of Chance'
at the time of raid and hence, the petitioner 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'.
10. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered
opinion that the impugned proceedings, qua the petitioner,
deserve to be quashed.
11. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned proceedings in F.I.R. in
Crime No.35/2025 on the file of Principal Civil Judge
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22341
HC-KAR
(Sr.Dn) and CJM Court, Chitradurga District, insofar
as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
MDS
