RUDRAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA KIRESUR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17279
CRL.P No. 102780 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186442026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102780 OF 2026
[482(Cr.P.C)/528(BNSS)]
BETWEEN:
1. RUDRAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA KIRESUR,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: COOLIE,
RESIDING OF: BEHIND P AND T QUARTERS,
GADAG - 582 101.
2. BABU S/O MAHADEVAPPA SARVI,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: COOLIE,
RESIDING OF: PANCHAKSHARI NAGAR,
RD
3 CROSS, GADAG - 582 101.
3. DILIP S/O ANAND KATHADE,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: DAIRY FARMING,
RESIDING OF: NEAR RAMANATH TEMPLE,
KUSHTAGI CHAWL BETAGERI,
GADAG - 582 102.
4. GIRISH S/O ANAND KATHADE,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: DAIRY FARMING,
RESIDING OF: NEAR RAMANATH TEMPLE,
KUSHTAGI CHAWL BETAGERI,
GADAG - 582 102.
5. NAGARAJ S/O ANNAPPA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOTEL BUSINESS,
RESIDING OF: VIVEKANAND NAGAR,
GADAG - 582 101.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17279
CRL.P No. 102780 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186442026
6. SURESH S/O SHEKHAR PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOTEL BUSINESS,
RESIDING OF: NEAR HATALAGERI NAKA,
GADAG - 582 101.
7. BABU S/O MANJU POOJAR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOTEL BUSINESS,
RESIDING OF: SANKETH SANKEERNA APARTMENT,
NEAR DISTRICT STADIUM, GADAG - 582 101.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI AMRUTH V. JOIS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY POLICE INSPECTOR,
BETAGERI EXTENSION POLICE STATION, GADAG,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD - 580 011.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CHARGE-SHEET FILED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.4955 OF
2025 (BETAGERI EXTENSION POLICE STATION CRIME NO.93 OF
2025) ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GADAG, AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11 AND 12 FOR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 79 AND 80 OF THE
KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963, AND UNDER SECTION 112(2) OF
THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANITHA, 2023, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17279
CRL.P No. 102780 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186442026
ORAL ORDER
This criminal petition is filed by the
petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11 and 12 under
Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
seeking to quash the entire proceedings in Criminal Case
No.4955 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned I
Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Gadag, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, and
under Section 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case in nutshell
are that, on 21.10.2025, during Deepawali festival, the
de facto complainant received a credible information that
on the first floor of Sai Madura Tiffins Shop, some
unknown persons are playing cards. Hence, the
complainant secured two panchas along with his staff at
about 12.05 in the midnight, went to the spot and
conducted raid. The complainant arrested twelve persons
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17279
CRL.P No. 102780 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186442026
and seized cash of Rs.8,720/- and 52 cards under seizure
mahazar and lodged a complaint. Hence, a case was
registered for the aforesaid offences. In turn, the
Investigating Officer conducted investigation and filed
charge-sheet against the accused persons.
3. Taking exception to filing of the charge-sheet, the
petitioners have preferred this petition.
4. Heard Sri Amruth V. Jois, learned counsel for the
petitioners, and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended
that the offences alleged against the petitioners are
completely false. The de facto complainant lodged the
complaint alleging that the petitioners were engaged in
gambling is incorrect and reference to 'common gaming
house' has to be considered in respect of Section 2(3) of
the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. Hence, the house as
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17279
CRL.P No. 102780 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186442026
described in the complaint would not qualify for the said
definition. He further contended that a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of K.N. SURESH v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2012 KAR
1443 held that 'andar bahar' is not a game of skill and is
mere a game of chance. Therefore, the offences
punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka
Police Act, 1963, are not attracted. Hence, learned counsel
for petitioner prayed to quash the proceedings.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent-State has contended that when the petitioners
were playing andar bahar, a huge amount was seized from
them, which indicates that they were engaged in gambling
and therefore, the proceedings ought not to be quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that the issue in the case on hand stands covered by the
judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17279
CRL.P No. 102780 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186442026
Court in Criminal Petition No.100877 of 2014 ,
disposed on 13.06.2014, which read as under:
"4. The above said factual aspects disclose that, the police
have raided the said club, initiated the proceedings and
registered the case. In a case involving similar facts, this
Court had an opportunity to deal with the same set of
facts and decide the matter. In a case reported in 2012
(2) K.L.J. page 581 in the case of K. N. Suresh Vs.
State of Karnataka & Ors., this Court has observed;
“ ‘Common gaming house’ means a
building, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle,
vessel or place in which any instruments of
gaming are kept or used for the profit or
gain of the person owning, occupying, or
keeping such building, room, tent,
enclosure, vehicle, vessel or place, or of the
person using such building, room, tent,
enclosure, vehicle, vessel or place, whether
he has a right to use the same or not, such
profit or gain being either by way of a
charge for the use of the instruments of
gaming or of the building, room, tent,
enclosure, vehicle, vessel or place, or
otherwise howsoever or as subscription or
other payment for the use of facilities along
with the use of the instruments of gaming
or of the building, room, tent, enclosure,
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17279
CRL.P No. 102780 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186442026
vehicle, vessel or place for purposes of
gaming”.
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
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17279
CRL.P No. 102780 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186442026
of chance 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 of
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
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17279
CRL.P No. 102780 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186442026
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 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
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17279
CRL.P No. 102780 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186442026
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.
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
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17279
CRL.P No. 102780 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186442026
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
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".
8. Further, this Court in Criminal Petition
No.102245 of 2026 disposed of on 23.09.2026 has
quashed the proceedings against accused Nos.3, 4 and 8.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17279
CRL.P No. 102780 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020186442026
The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11 and 12.
Therefore, this court deems it appropriate to quash the
proceedings qua the petitioners.
9. For the reasons aforementioned, this Court
proceeds to pass the following
O R D E R
i. Criminal petition is allowed .
ii. The entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.4955 of
2025 pending on the file of the learned I Additional
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadag,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections
79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, and
under Section 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, insofar as the petitioners/accused
Nos.1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11 and 12 are hereby quashed.
In view of the disposal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KVK /CT-SK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13