Karnataka High Court
Kumar S vs State Of Karnataka on 2 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:34381
WP No. 26024 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 26024 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. KUMAR S
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O LATE RUDRA SHETTY,
R/A 2H.NO.601, ANKADAKATTE,
KOTESHWARA VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 222.
2. SHEENA POOJARI
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O LATE NANDI POOJARI,
R/A AMRUTHA NILAYA,
NEAR ADARSHA HOSPITAL,
KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201.
Digitally signed
by CHAITHRA A
Location: HIGH 3. MANJUNATHA
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
S/O LATE NARASIMA,
R/A 8-37, MARUTHI VANA ROAD,
KOTESHWARA VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUKL,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 222.
4. NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUTHA,
R/A NEAR NATARAJ BAR,
SPOORTHI DHAMA ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:34381
WP No. 26024 of 2025
HC-KAR
MUDUGOPADI VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 257.
5. UDAYA KUMAR SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O BHOJARAJA SHETTY,
R/A HADI MANE MARKODU,
KOTESHWARA VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 222.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KUNDAPURA PS,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. HARISH R
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
POLICE OFFICER,
PSI (L AND O),
KUNDAPURA POLILCE STATION,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED
14.03.2020 IN C.C NO.1234/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT KUNDAPURA, FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 79 AND 80 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT,
1963, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN (ANNEXURE-A).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:34381
WP No. 26024 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by the petitioners
seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in
C.C.No.1234/2020 for the offences punishable under
Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
2. The gist of the prosecution's allegation is that
the petitioners were found engaged in playing the game
of andar-bahar, pursuant to which a criminal case came to
be registered. The Investigating Officer, being of the view
that the petitioners had committed an offence, proceeded
to lay a charge sheet in C.C.No.1234/2020.
3. The issue as to whether a citizen found playing
a game of chance, namely andar-bahar, constitutes an
offence has already been considered and decided by a Co-
ordinate Bench in W.P.No.2227/2024. It is apposite for
this Court to reproduce paragraph 3 of the said judgment,
NC: 2025:KHC:34381
HC-KAR
which in turn refers to an earlier judgment rendered in
Crl.P.No.100877/2014, and reads as follows:
"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 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
NC: 2025:KHC:34381
HC-KAR
game. They were not covered under the
definition of gaming in a 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".
(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 view of the categorical findings recorded by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it has been unequivocally
held that participation in a game of pure chance, such
as andar-bahar, cannot be construed as constituting an
offence under any penal provision, much less under
Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
NC: 2025:KHC:34381
HC-KAR
Once such an authoritative pronouncement has clarified
the legal position, the very substratum of the prosecution
in C.C.No.1234/2020 stands completely eroded. The
allegations, even if accepted on their face value, do not
disclose the commission of any cognizable or non-
cognizable offence within the ambit of the statutory
provisions invoked. Consequently, the continuance of the
criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be
wholly redundant and bereft of any legal foundation.
5. Permitting such proceedings to drag on, despite
the clear enunciation of law by this Court, would serve no
fruitful purpose and would only result in prolonging
unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. It would
further amount to subjecting them to avoidable criminal
trial when the act complained of does not even fall within
the four corners of penal law. Such continuance, in the
considered opinion of this Court, would not only constitute
an abuse of the process of law but also lead to serious
miscarriage of justice.
NC: 2025:KHC:34381
HC-KAR
6. Having regard to the binding precedent laid
down by the Co-ordinate Bench, and keeping in view that
the basic ingredients constituting the alleged offences are
completely absent in the present case, the possibility of
securing a conviction is not only remote but wholly
illusory. In these circumstances, the present case
eminently warrants the exercise of this Court's inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, to secure the ends of justice.
Interference at this stage is necessary to prevent misuse
of judicial process and to ensure that the petitioners are
not compelled to undergo the rigours of a fruitless trial.
7. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed;
(ii) The entire proceedings in
C.C.No.1234/2020, pending on the file of the
NC: 2025:KHC:34381
HC-KAR
learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
Kundapura, for the offences punishable under
Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act,
1963, in so far as they relate to the petitioners
herein, are quashed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
