Gopal Naik vs State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 8398 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Gopal Naik vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC:36707
                                                      WP No. 26487 of 2025


                   HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

                                           BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 26487 OF 2025 (GM-RES)


                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    GOPAL NAIK
                         AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
                         S/O MANJA NAIK,
                         R/A KONGADI MAVINAKODLU,
                         KULANJE VILLAGE,
                         KUNDAPURA TALUK,
                         UDUPI DISTRICT-576201.

                   2.    RAMESH
                         AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
                         S/O KARIYAPPA KOTAGAR,
                         R/A H.NO.3-401/1,
                         JYOTHINAGAR ROAD,
                         NEAR VIDYA JYOTHI PRIMARY SCHOOL,
Digitally signed
by CHAITHRA A            KAVUR VILLAGE,
Location: High           MANGALORE TALUK,
Court of                 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT -575015.
Karnataka

                   3.    ABHILASH
                         AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
                         S/O BHAVANI SHANKAR,
                         R/A H.NO.4-136/10,
                         KELAMAHADI KOMBETTU HOUSE,
                         NANDANAPU,
                         MANGALORE TALUK,
                         DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT -575001.
                            -2-
                                    NC: 2025:KHC:36707
                                  WP No. 26487 of 2025


HC-KAR



4.   VIKRAM
     AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
     S/O ERAPPA,
     R/A KOTABAGIYAVARA ONI,
     DODAWADA VILLAGE,
     BAILHONGAL TALUK,
     BELAGAVI VILLAGE,
     BELAGAVI DISTRICT -591102.


5.   RATHNAKARA SHETTY
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
     S/O SHIVARAM SHETTY,
     R/A NEAR NOOJI SCHOOL,
     KORGI POST AND VILLAGE.
     KUNDAPURA TALUK,
     UDUPI DISTRICT-576231.


6.   MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
     S/O ABDUL AJEEJ,
     R/A FLAT NO.102,
     HERITAGE APARTMENT
     AYYANGAR NAGARA,
     MANIPAL,
     UDUPI TALUK,
     UDUPI DISTRICT-576104.

7.   SURESH HAIKADI
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
     S/O LATE JAGANNATH SHETTY
     R/A 2-112 KASADI,
     HILIYANA POST,
     UDUPI DISTRICT-576212.

8.   SUJAYA SHETTY
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
     S/O SADANANDA SHETTY,
     R/A 1-62, MAHADEVI PRASAD,
     MALYADI,
                             -3-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC:36707
                                  WP No. 26487 of 2025


HC-KAR



     THEKKATTE,
     UDUPI DISTRICT-576231.

                                            ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, DVOCATE)


AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY BRAHMAVARA PS,
     REPRESENTED BY
     STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT BUILDING,
     BENGALURU-560 001.

2.   ASHOK MALABAGI
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
     POLICE OFFICER,
     PSI (L&O)
     BRAHMAVARA POLICE STATION,
     UDUPI DISTRICT-576213.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP)

     THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR
DIRECTION TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 31.07.2025 IN CRIME
NO.163/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, AT UDUPI, 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:
                            -4-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC:36707
                                      WP No. 26487 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 Crime

No.163/2025 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 in Crime No.163/2025.

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,

which in turn refers to an earlier judgment rendered in

Crl.P.No.100877/2014, and reads as follows:

NC: 2025:KHC:36707

HC-KAR

"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 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

NC: 2025:KHC:36707

HC-KAR

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.

Once such an authoritative pronouncement has clarified

the legal position, the very substratum of the prosecution

NC: 2025:KHC:36707

HC-KAR

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:36707

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 proceedings in Crime No.163/2025 registered by the respondent/Police, pending on

NC: 2025:KHC:36707

HC-KAR

the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, insofar as they relate to the petitioners herein, are quashed.

Sd/-

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

CA