Madras High Court
Siva Raman vs The Inspector Of Police on 27 March, 2023
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 27/03/2023
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.4729 of 2023
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.4166 and 4168 of 2023
1.Siva Raman
2.Subramaniyan
3.Sri Renga Raman
4.KTS.Palaniyappan
5.Renganathan
6.Selva Thurai
7.Muthukrishnan
8.Saravanan
9.Nagaraj
10.Madhavan
11.Murugapan
12.Sethu
13.Karthikeyan
14.Krishnamoorthy
15.Arunachalam
16.Valliyappan
17.Muthu
18.Pakampriyan : Petitioners/A1 to A18
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Pallathur Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
(Crime No.70 of 2022) : R1/Complainant
2.A.Sylviya Jasmine : R2/De-facto Complainant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
PRAYER:- This Criminal Original Petition has been
filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
to call for the records pertaining to STC No.1287 of 2022
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan
For 1st Respondent : Mr.B.Nambiselvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed
seeking quashment of the case in STC No.1287 of 2022 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District.
2.The facts in brief:-
On 09/07/2022 at about 05.10 pm, the accused found
in the charge sheet were found playing cards for benefit
in Young's men Club situated in Pallathur. An amount of
Rs.65,950/- was seized from them. On the basis of the
above said occurrence, the case was registered and final
report was also filed charging the petitioners that they
committed the offences punishable under sections 8 and 9
of the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has
been filed by the petitioners stating that the above said
club is a registered society. No proper procedure was
adopted at that time raid or seizure etc; The ingredients
of the offences under sections 8 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu
Gaming Act are not attracted; The person, who registered
the case himself, has investigated the matter, which is
not permissible under law.
4.Heard both sides.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would straightaway draw the attention of this
court judgment made in Crl.OP(MD)No.17317 of 2021, dated
01/09/2022. Wherein the above said accused booked under
sections 8 and 9 of Tamil Nadu Gaming Act 1930. It was
contended before this court that the club was a
registered society under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Societies Registration Act. Even as per the previsions of
the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, prohibited the gambling in the
common gaming house. More-over, the offence will attract
only when the profit or gain is involved in the gambling
activity. It was held that the above said premises will
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not come under the category of common gaming house. More-
over, playing of cards is per se is not an offence unless
it is stated that it was done either for profit or gain.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
wanted to draw the analogy of the case to the present
facts and circumstances. But I am afraid that such
analogy can be drawn.
7.In the FIR as well as the final report, it has
been clearly stated that that the accused found playing
for gain or for profit, which prima facie attracts the
offence under sections 8 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Gaming
Act. Even though, the premises where the above said cards
were played is a registered society and also prohibited
from police interference, as per the order passed in
WP(MD)No.26512 of 2019, dated 13/12/2019, carrying on the
illegal activity was not protected by the above said
order. Even in the above said order, it has been clearly
stated that the petitioner must obtain proper permission
from the competent authority under the provisions of
Tamil Nadu Places of Public Places Resorts Act, 1888.
Whether proper licence has been obtained in pursuance of
the above said order, is not clear on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
draw the attention of this court to the order passed by
this court in Crl.OP(MD)No.15794 of 2022, wherein this
petitioner moved petition under section 482 Cr.P.C
seeking quashment of the FIR in Crime No.17 of 2022,
which is the subject matter herein, at the time of
investigation. At that time, it was contended that no
proper permission was obtained by raiding party from the
competent authority before undertaking the raid. That was
dismissed by this court on the ground that so far, no
licence was obtained by the petitioner to run the above
said club. So it is seen that this is the second time on
the part of the petitioner stating different grounds.
9.In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am
of the considered view that no ground is made out by the
petitioner. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner by
undertaking the investigation by the Officer, who
registered the FIR. It is a matter for consideration
during the course of trial. But as things stand today,
even as per the grounds made in the petition, I find
absolutely no prima facie case has been made out. Prima
facie to show that the because of the investigation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
undertaken by the second respondent, prejudice has been
caused to the petitioner. I find absolutely no reason to
quash the proceedings.
10.In the result, this criminal original petition
is dismissed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
27/03/2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To,
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Karaikudi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Pallathur Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
Crl.OP(MD)No.4729 of 2023
27/03/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
