Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15756 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.GIRISH H K
S/O KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RD
R/AT NO.40, 3 CROSS,
SWARNASANDRA,
MANDYA TOWN,
MANDYA - 571 401.
2. SRI. VENKATESHA K.R @ CHANDRA
S/O RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
ST
R/AT NO.1144, 1 CROSS,
ASHOKANAGAR, MANDYA CITY,
MANDYA - 571 401.
3. SRI. SHASHIKUMAR
S/O LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
ND
R/AT 2 CROSS,
CHOWDESHWARI NEXT, RAMOHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 074.
4. SRI NAGENDRA
S/O LATE LINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ND
R/AT NO.252, 2 CROSS,
Digitally signed by
NAGAVENI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
SWARNASANDRA,
MANDYA TOWN,
MANDYA - 571 401.
5. SRI. CHALUVARAJU S
S/O LATE SRIKANTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT IN FRONT OF JAYALAKSHMI TAKIES,
ST
1 CROSS, GUTHALU,
MANDYA TOWN,
MANDYA - 571 401.
6.
SRI RAVIKUMAR K N
S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
TH
R/AT V. V. NAGARA, 16 CROSS,
KALAHALLI, MANDYA TOWN,
MANDYA - 571 401.
7. SRI. SIDDEGOWDA
S/O LATE PUTTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
TH
R/AT 4 CROSS,
LABOUR COLONY,
MANDYA TOWN,
MANDYA - 571 401.
8. SRI. MAHADEVA M.M
S/O LATE MADEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT IN FRONT OF JAYALAKSHMI TAKIES,
ST
1 CROSS, GUTHALU,
MANDYA TOWN,
MANDYA - 571 401.
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
9. SRI. KRISHNEGOWDA
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
TH
R/AT 6 CROSS, THAVARAGERE
MC ROAD, MANDYA TOWN,
MANDYA - 571 401.
10. SRI. CHANDREGOWDA T.S,
S/O LATE T.K.SIDDARAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
SECRETARY OF AGRI CLUB MANDYA
R/AT NO.543, THAGGAHALLI VILLAGE,
MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA - 571 401.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SATHISHA D.J, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANDYA RURAL POLICE STATION,
MANDYA SUB-DIVISION,
MANDYA - 571 401
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SRI. SIDDAPPA H.R
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
POLICE INSPECTOR,
MANDYA RURAL POLICE STATION,
MANDYA - 571 401.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW
THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDING IN
C.C NO.519/2023 AT ANNEXURE-C, IN PURSUANCE OF THE
CHARGE SHEET FOR THE OFFENCE THE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 79 AND 80 OF KARNATAKA POLICE (AMENDMENT
ACT) 2021, PENDING ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS, MANDYA, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question
proceedings in C.C.No.519/2023 pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Mandya, registered for the offences
punishable under Section 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police
Act, 1963.
2. Heard Sri. Sathisha D.J., learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Addl.SPP
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material
on record.
3. 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.103022/2025 , disposed on 07.08.2025, which
read as follows:
1. Accused Nos.1 to 20 in Crime No.114 of
2025 registered by Sirsi Rural Police Station, Uttara
Kannada District, for the offences punishable under
Sections 79 & 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and
Section 112 of BNS, 2023 have approached this Court in
these two petitions filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023,
with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the
aforesaid case, as against them.
2. FIR in Crime No.114 of 2025 was registered
by Sirsi Rural Police Station, Uttara Kannada District for
the aforesaid offences against the petitioners herein, based
on the first information dated 24.07.2025 received from
Smt.Geeta Patil, Police Officer, attached to Sirsi Rural
Police Station, Uttara Kannada. Assailing the correctness of
the same, the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused
Nos.1 to 20 in the FIR, are before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the allegation against the accused in the present case
is that they were indulged in playing game of Andar bahar
in a private resort. The game of Andar bahar has been
considered as a game of skill by this Court and therefore
registration of FIR for the aforesaid offences is bad in law.
He has placed reliance on multiple judgments of this Court,
which has time and again said that game of Andar bahar is
a game of skill and not a game of chance.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the
petition. She submits that in addition to Sections 79 and
80 of the Karnataka Police Act, in the present case, offence
punishable under Section 112 of BNS 2023, is also invoked
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
and therefore investigation is necessary. Accordingly, she
prays to dismiss the petition.
5. The allegation against the petitioners in the
first information is that, on 24.07.2025 they were found
playing the game of Andar bahar in a resort known as VRR
Home stay owned by accused No.1.
6. The police conducted a raid to the aforesaid
place, apprehended all the accused and also had recovered
a sum of ₹49,50,436/- along with the pack of cards,
mobile phones and the vehicles belonging to the accused
and thereafter the FIR was registered against the
apprehended accused for the aforesaid offences.
7. This Court in Criminal Petition No.1997 of
2021, in paragraph Nos.7 to 9 has observed as follows:
“7. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners and other
members of the club who were present at the time of raid were
indulged in playing the game of cards which is known as Andhar
Bahar. This Court in Crl.P.No.9298/2017 disposed of on
30.01.2018, has observed in paragraphs 5 & 6 as under:
5. In another decision reported in Eranna and
others Vs. State of Karnataka [1977(1) Kar.L.J. 274],
this court has observed that,-
"Unless the prosecution proved , how the game of
'Andar Bahar' is played and in what manner bettings
are recorded, it could not be inferred that it was a
pure and simple game of chance and not a game of
skill".
6. This court also observed in the said case that,
though the persons were plaing the game called
'Andar Bahar' in a private house or at a public house,
the court interpreting the provisions of Section 2(3) of
K.P.Act referring to the definition of 'Common Gaming
House', has observed that, though the persons were
playing 'Andar Bahar' inside their house for that
reason only it cannot be called as a common gaming
house. When no complaint has been filed by anybody
that the said house has been converted into a
common gaming house at any point of time. Merely
on the ground as an isolated circumstance, if some
persons or the inmates of the house were playing
'Andar Bahar', at any stretch of imagination, it cannot
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
be said that the said house can be called as 'Common
Gaming House'."
8. In Crl.P.No.200807/ 2017 (Ramu & others Vs The State), the
co-ordinate bench of this Court, has held in paragraph 8 as under:
"8. The third contention which has been raised
by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that,
though the charge sheet has been laid against the
petitioners, there is nothing to demonstrate that the
petitioners-accused were playing Andar Bahar and it is
a game of chance. As could be seen from the records,
no where the material indicates the type of game,
which they are intending to play or played. Even the
complaint and other material indicates that at a
distance by hiding near the temple, the police officials
and the other witnesses have seen that, two groups
have been sat around and they were playing
immediately, thereafter they have made a raid. In
order to say that the petitioners were playing Andar
Bahar, the prosecution has to prove how the game of
Andar Bahar is played and in what manner the betting
are recorded and how that the play was going on.
Only by seeing at a distance, it could not been
inferred that poor and simple game and no game of
skill.
If any betting was registered and even if any pledge
of movables was made in spite of the betting that
itself did not constitute a game of skill into a game of
chance. If the entire material if it is perused, it was
not clearly proved that the accused persons were
playing Andar Bahar and it is a game of chance and as
such it is not going to attract the provisions of
Sections 78 and 80 of the Act. This, proposition of law
has been laid down in the case of Eranna & Ors. Vs.
State of Karnataka reported in 1977(1) Karnataka
Law Journal page 274. When once all the material,
which has been produced and if it does not
forthcoming to show that the said game, which was
intended to be or which was played was a game of
chance and was not a game of skill involved in that
game, under such circumstances the proceedings
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
which have been initiated by virtue of filing the charge
sheet appears to be not sustainable in law and the
same are liable to be quashed.
Keeping in view the above said facts and
circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed and
proceedings initiated against the petitioners in
C.C.No.227/2016, pending on the file of Civil Judge
and JMFC, Shahabad is hereby quashed."
9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid pronouncements
rendered by this Court, I am of the view that even in the present
case, admittedly the cards game which was being played by the
petitioners being Andar Bahar, unless the prosecution specifies as
to how the said game is a game of chance and not a game of skill,
registration of criminal case as against the members of the club
cannot be sustained. Further, as held in Eranna's case (supra),
admittedly there is no complaint by any private party that the club
premises was being used as a common gaming house.”
8. In Criminal Petition No.200052 of 2016, disposed
off on 30.03.2016, in paragraph 3, it has observed as follows:
“3. xxx However, the learned counsel for the
petitioners strenuously contends that playing cards in a
private house or in a private property does not amount to
playing any game either of skill or playing game of chance
in a gaming house. Therefore, it does not fall under the
category of the offences under sections 79 and 80 of the
Karnataka Police Act. Further he submits that playing the
game of 'Andhar-Bahar', it cannot be said that the said
game is a game of chance, but it is consistently held by
this Court that the said game is a game of skill. When the
game of skill is stated to have been played there is no
question of police initiating any proceeding and proceed
with the investigation for the offences punishable under
sections 79 or 80 of the Karnataka Police Act. In this
regard it is seen that this Court has early in the year 1977
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
between Eranna and others Vs. State of Karnataka
reported 1977(1) Karnataka Law Journal wherein this
Court has held that the charge against the accused were
they were found playing 'Andhar-Bahar' in a club and that
Andhar-Bahar is a game of chance, held Unless the
prosecution proves how the game of Andhar-Bahar is
played and in what manner bettings are recorded, it could
not be inferred that it was a pure and simple game of
chance and not a game of skill.”
9. This Court in Criminal Petition No.101883 of
2025 disposed off on 15.05.2025 under similar
circumstances in a case which was registered by the very
same police station for similar offences, in paragraph
Nos.4 and 5 has observed as follows:
“4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
facts involved in this petition is squarely covered by the
decision of this Court in the case of Eranna & Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka¹, which is subsequently relled by Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in several criminal petitions. One such petition is
Crl. P. No.100877/2014, [ Ramakrishna & Others Vs. The State
of Karnataka and Another, disposed of on 13.06.2014]. The
Co- ordinate Bench, in its order passed in the above criminal
petition, at paragraphs 5 and 6 has held as under:
"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) Κ.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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
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 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".
5. In the light of the decision of this Court rendered in
the case of Eranna & Ors. (supra), the issue stands resolved
and no more an res integra, and this Court deems it
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
appropriate to quash the proceedings qua the petitioners
herein.”
10. From the aforesaid orders passed by this
Court, it is very clear that the police could not have
registered the case against the petitioners for offences
punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka
Police Act, on the allegation that they were indulged in
playing the game of Andar bahar in a private resort
belonging to accused No.1.
11. So far as the offences punishable under
Section 112 of BNS 2023 is concerned, the said provision
of law, would get attracted only if the accused were found
indulging in unauthorised betting or gambling.
12. Section 112 of the BNS 2023 read as
follows:
“112. Petty Organised Crime. -(1) Whoever, being a
member of a group or gang, either singly or jointly,
commits any act of theft, snatching, cheating,
unauthorised selling of tickets, unauthorised betting or
gambling, selling of public examination question papers or
any other similar criminal act, is said to commit petty
organised crime.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section
"theft" includes trick theft, theft from vehicle, dwelling
house or business premises, cargo theft, pick pocketing,
theft through card skimming, shoplifting and theft of
Automated Teller Machine.
(2) Whoever commits any petty organised crime
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than one year but which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. ”
13. From the reading of the aforesaid provision
of law, it is very clear that unless the accused who is
member of a group or a gang is found indulged in activities
specified in the aforesaid provision, the said offence does
not get attracted. In the present case, there is no such
allegation that accused persons are members of a group or
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
a gang. It is not the case of the prosecution that the
petitioners are persons with criminal antecedents. The
allegation against the accused in the first information is
that they were found playing the game of card called
Andar bahar in a private resort and therefore the FIR was
registered against them for the offences punishable under
Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act and Section
112 of the BNS 2023. Placing reliance on several
judgments of this Court, this Court has already recorded a
finding that considering the nature of allegations, police
could not have registered a case against the petitioners for
offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the
Karnataka Police Act since the game of Andar bahar is
considered as a game of skill. Therefore even the offence
punishable under Section 112 of BNS 2023 would not get
attracted against the accused in the present case. Under
the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer
made by the petitioners in these two petitions needs to be
granted. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal petition is allowed.
ii. The entire proceeding in Crime No.114 of
2025 registered by Sirsi Rural Police
Station, Uttara Kannada District, for the
offences punishable under Sections 79 &
80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and
Section 112 of BNS, 2023 is quashed.
iii. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to file
necessary application before the
jurisdictional Court seeking custody of the
articles seized by the police."
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.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. For the reasons aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.519/2023 pending
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Mandya, stand quashed, qua the petitioners.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
SJK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67
CT:BHK
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15756 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.GIRISH H K
S/O KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RD
R/AT NO.40, 3 CROSS,
SWARNASANDRA,
MANDYA TOWN,
MANDYA - 571 401.
2. SRI. VENKATESHA K.R @ CHANDRA
S/O RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
ST
R/AT NO.1144, 1 CROSS,
ASHOKANAGAR, MANDYA CITY,
MANDYA - 571 401.
3. SRI. SHASHIKUMAR
S/O LINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
ND
R/AT 2 CROSS,
CHOWDESHWARI NEXT, RAMOHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 074.
4. SRI NAGENDRA
S/O LATE LINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ND
R/AT NO.252, 2 CROSS,
Digitally signed by
NAGAVENI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
SWARNASANDRA,
MANDYA TOWN,
MANDYA - 571 401.
5. SRI. CHALUVARAJU S
S/O LATE SRIKANTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT IN FRONT OF JAYALAKSHMI TAKIES,
ST
1 CROSS, GUTHALU,
MANDYA TOWN,
MANDYA - 571 401.
6.
SRI RAVIKUMAR K N
S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
TH
R/AT V. V. NAGARA, 16 CROSS,
KALAHALLI, MANDYA TOWN,
MANDYA - 571 401.
7. SRI. SIDDEGOWDA
S/O LATE PUTTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
TH
R/AT 4 CROSS,
LABOUR COLONY,
MANDYA TOWN,
MANDYA - 571 401.
8. SRI. MAHADEVA M.M
S/O LATE MADEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT IN FRONT OF JAYALAKSHMI TAKIES,
ST
1 CROSS, GUTHALU,
MANDYA TOWN,
MANDYA - 571 401.
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
9. SRI. KRISHNEGOWDA
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
TH
R/AT 6 CROSS, THAVARAGERE
MC ROAD, MANDYA TOWN,
MANDYA - 571 401.
10. SRI. CHANDREGOWDA T.S,
S/O LATE T.K.SIDDARAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
SECRETARY OF AGRI CLUB MANDYA
R/AT NO.543, THAGGAHALLI VILLAGE,
MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA - 571 401.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SATHISHA D.J, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANDYA RURAL POLICE STATION,
MANDYA SUB-DIVISION,
MANDYA - 571 401
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SRI. SIDDAPPA H.R
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
POLICE INSPECTOR,
MANDYA RURAL POLICE STATION,
MANDYA - 571 401.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW
THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDING IN
C.C NO.519/2023 AT ANNEXURE-C, IN PURSUANCE OF THE
CHARGE SHEET FOR THE OFFENCE THE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 79 AND 80 OF KARNATAKA POLICE (AMENDMENT
ACT) 2021, PENDING ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS, MANDYA, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question
proceedings in C.C.No.519/2023 pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Mandya, registered for the offences
punishable under Section 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police
Act, 1963.
2. Heard Sri. Sathisha D.J., learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Addl.SPP
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material
on record.
3. 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.103022/2025 , disposed on 07.08.2025, which
read as follows:
1. Accused Nos.1 to 20 in Crime No.114 of
2025 registered by Sirsi Rural Police Station, Uttara
Kannada District, for the offences punishable under
Sections 79 & 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and
Section 112 of BNS, 2023 have approached this Court in
these two petitions filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023,
with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the
aforesaid case, as against them.
2. FIR in Crime No.114 of 2025 was registered
by Sirsi Rural Police Station, Uttara Kannada District for
the aforesaid offences against the petitioners herein, based
on the first information dated 24.07.2025 received from
Smt.Geeta Patil, Police Officer, attached to Sirsi Rural
Police Station, Uttara Kannada. Assailing the correctness of
the same, the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused
Nos.1 to 20 in the FIR, are before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the allegation against the accused in the present case
is that they were indulged in playing game of Andar bahar
in a private resort. The game of Andar bahar has been
considered as a game of skill by this Court and therefore
registration of FIR for the aforesaid offences is bad in law.
He has placed reliance on multiple judgments of this Court,
which has time and again said that game of Andar bahar is
a game of skill and not a game of chance.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the
petition. She submits that in addition to Sections 79 and
80 of the Karnataka Police Act, in the present case, offence
punishable under Section 112 of BNS 2023, is also invoked
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
and therefore investigation is necessary. Accordingly, she
prays to dismiss the petition.
5. The allegation against the petitioners in the
first information is that, on 24.07.2025 they were found
playing the game of Andar bahar in a resort known as VRR
Home stay owned by accused No.1.
6. The police conducted a raid to the aforesaid
place, apprehended all the accused and also had recovered
a sum of ₹49,50,436/- along with the pack of cards,
mobile phones and the vehicles belonging to the accused
and thereafter the FIR was registered against the
apprehended accused for the aforesaid offences.
7. This Court in Criminal Petition No.1997 of
2021, in paragraph Nos.7 to 9 has observed as follows:
“7. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners and other
members of the club who were present at the time of raid were
indulged in playing the game of cards which is known as Andhar
Bahar. This Court in Crl.P.No.9298/2017 disposed of on
30.01.2018, has observed in paragraphs 5 & 6 as under:
5. In another decision reported in Eranna and
others Vs. State of Karnataka [1977(1) Kar.L.J. 274],
this court has observed that,-
"Unless the prosecution proved , how the game of
'Andar Bahar' is played and in what manner bettings
are recorded, it could not be inferred that it was a
pure and simple game of chance and not a game of
skill".
6. This court also observed in the said case that,
though the persons were plaing the game called
'Andar Bahar' in a private house or at a public house,
the court interpreting the provisions of Section 2(3) of
K.P.Act referring to the definition of 'Common Gaming
House', has observed that, though the persons were
playing 'Andar Bahar' inside their house for that
reason only it cannot be called as a common gaming
house. When no complaint has been filed by anybody
that the said house has been converted into a
common gaming house at any point of time. Merely
on the ground as an isolated circumstance, if some
persons or the inmates of the house were playing
'Andar Bahar', at any stretch of imagination, it cannot
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
be said that the said house can be called as 'Common
Gaming House'."
8. In Crl.P.No.200807/ 2017 (Ramu & others Vs The State), the
co-ordinate bench of this Court, has held in paragraph 8 as under:
"8. The third contention which has been raised
by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that,
though the charge sheet has been laid against the
petitioners, there is nothing to demonstrate that the
petitioners-accused were playing Andar Bahar and it is
a game of chance. As could be seen from the records,
no where the material indicates the type of game,
which they are intending to play or played. Even the
complaint and other material indicates that at a
distance by hiding near the temple, the police officials
and the other witnesses have seen that, two groups
have been sat around and they were playing
immediately, thereafter they have made a raid. In
order to say that the petitioners were playing Andar
Bahar, the prosecution has to prove how the game of
Andar Bahar is played and in what manner the betting
are recorded and how that the play was going on.
Only by seeing at a distance, it could not been
inferred that poor and simple game and no game of
skill.
If any betting was registered and even if any pledge
of movables was made in spite of the betting that
itself did not constitute a game of skill into a game of
chance. If the entire material if it is perused, it was
not clearly proved that the accused persons were
playing Andar Bahar and it is a game of chance and as
such it is not going to attract the provisions of
Sections 78 and 80 of the Act. This, proposition of law
has been laid down in the case of Eranna & Ors. Vs.
State of Karnataka reported in 1977(1) Karnataka
Law Journal page 274. When once all the material,
which has been produced and if it does not
forthcoming to show that the said game, which was
intended to be or which was played was a game of
chance and was not a game of skill involved in that
game, under such circumstances the proceedings
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
which have been initiated by virtue of filing the charge
sheet appears to be not sustainable in law and the
same are liable to be quashed.
Keeping in view the above said facts and
circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed and
proceedings initiated against the petitioners in
C.C.No.227/2016, pending on the file of Civil Judge
and JMFC, Shahabad is hereby quashed."
9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid pronouncements
rendered by this Court, I am of the view that even in the present
case, admittedly the cards game which was being played by the
petitioners being Andar Bahar, unless the prosecution specifies as
to how the said game is a game of chance and not a game of skill,
registration of criminal case as against the members of the club
cannot be sustained. Further, as held in Eranna's case (supra),
admittedly there is no complaint by any private party that the club
premises was being used as a common gaming house.”
8. In Criminal Petition No.200052 of 2016, disposed
off on 30.03.2016, in paragraph 3, it has observed as follows:
“3. xxx However, the learned counsel for the
petitioners strenuously contends that playing cards in a
private house or in a private property does not amount to
playing any game either of skill or playing game of chance
in a gaming house. Therefore, it does not fall under the
category of the offences under sections 79 and 80 of the
Karnataka Police Act. Further he submits that playing the
game of 'Andhar-Bahar', it cannot be said that the said
game is a game of chance, but it is consistently held by
this Court that the said game is a game of skill. When the
game of skill is stated to have been played there is no
question of police initiating any proceeding and proceed
with the investigation for the offences punishable under
sections 79 or 80 of the Karnataka Police Act. In this
regard it is seen that this Court has early in the year 1977
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
between Eranna and others Vs. State of Karnataka
reported 1977(1) Karnataka Law Journal wherein this
Court has held that the charge against the accused were
they were found playing 'Andhar-Bahar' in a club and that
Andhar-Bahar is a game of chance, held Unless the
prosecution proves how the game of Andhar-Bahar is
played and in what manner bettings are recorded, it could
not be inferred that it was a pure and simple game of
chance and not a game of skill.”
9. This Court in Criminal Petition No.101883 of
2025 disposed off on 15.05.2025 under similar
circumstances in a case which was registered by the very
same police station for similar offences, in paragraph
Nos.4 and 5 has observed as follows:
“4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
facts involved in this petition is squarely covered by the
decision of this Court in the case of Eranna & Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka¹, which is subsequently relled by Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in several criminal petitions. One such petition is
Crl. P. No.100877/2014, [ Ramakrishna & Others Vs. The State
of Karnataka and Another, disposed of on 13.06.2014]. The
Co- ordinate Bench, in its order passed in the above criminal
petition, at paragraphs 5 and 6 has held as under:
"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) Κ.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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
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 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".
5. In the light of the decision of this Court rendered in
the case of Eranna & Ors. (supra), the issue stands resolved
and no more an res integra, and this Court deems it
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
appropriate to quash the proceedings qua the petitioners
herein.”
10. From the aforesaid orders passed by this
Court, it is very clear that the police could not have
registered the case against the petitioners for offences
punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka
Police Act, on the allegation that they were indulged in
playing the game of Andar bahar in a private resort
belonging to accused No.1.
11. So far as the offences punishable under
Section 112 of BNS 2023 is concerned, the said provision
of law, would get attracted only if the accused were found
indulging in unauthorised betting or gambling.
12. Section 112 of the BNS 2023 read as
follows:
“112. Petty Organised Crime. -(1) Whoever, being a
member of a group or gang, either singly or jointly,
commits any act of theft, snatching, cheating,
unauthorised selling of tickets, unauthorised betting or
gambling, selling of public examination question papers or
any other similar criminal act, is said to commit petty
organised crime.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section
"theft" includes trick theft, theft from vehicle, dwelling
house or business premises, cargo theft, pick pocketing,
theft through card skimming, shoplifting and theft of
Automated Teller Machine.
(2) Whoever commits any petty organised crime
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than one year but which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. ”
13. From the reading of the aforesaid provision
of law, it is very clear that unless the accused who is
member of a group or a gang is found indulged in activities
specified in the aforesaid provision, the said offence does
not get attracted. In the present case, there is no such
allegation that accused persons are members of a group or
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
a gang. It is not the case of the prosecution that the
petitioners are persons with criminal antecedents. The
allegation against the accused in the first information is
that they were found playing the game of card called
Andar bahar in a private resort and therefore the FIR was
registered against them for the offences punishable under
Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act and Section
112 of the BNS 2023. Placing reliance on several
judgments of this Court, this Court has already recorded a
finding that considering the nature of allegations, police
could not have registered a case against the petitioners for
offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the
Karnataka Police Act since the game of Andar bahar is
considered as a game of skill. Therefore even the offence
punishable under Section 112 of BNS 2023 would not get
attracted against the accused in the present case. Under
the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer
made by the petitioners in these two petitions needs to be
granted. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal petition is allowed.
ii. The entire proceeding in Crime No.114 of
2025 registered by Sirsi Rural Police
Station, Uttara Kannada District, for the
offences punishable under Sections 79 &
80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and
Section 112 of BNS, 2023 is quashed.
iii. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to file
necessary application before the
jurisdictional Court seeking custody of the
articles seized by the police."
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.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1554
CRL.P No. 15756 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. For the reasons aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.519/2023 pending
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Mandya, stand quashed, qua the petitioners.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
SJK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67
CT:BHK