Andar Bahar charges require proof that the game is one of chance, not skill.

On 26 October 2024, an Assistant Sub-Inspector received information that persons were playing Andar-bahar for stakes at a lodge in Dharwad. During a raid, police allegedly found persons playing cards and seized ₹1,04,270 and a mobile phone.

Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner, accused No. 11, and others for offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, as amended. The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 3514/2024 under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS.

1. Whether the material in the charge sheet was sufficient to sustain proceedings against the petitioner for playing Andar-bahar, including whether the prosecution had shown how the game was played and that it was a game of chance rather than skill.

2. Whether the alleged activity and premises attracted Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS to seek quashing of criminal proceedings.

The alleged offences were under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, as amended; the dispute also concerned the Act’s definition of a “common gaming house” under Section 2(3).

Relying on the reasoning in Criminal Petition No. 200807/2017 and Eranna & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 1977(1) Karnataka Law Journal 274, the Court held that proceedings concerning Andar-bahar could not be sustained where the material did not establish how the game was played or demonstrate that it was a game of chance rather than skill.

The cited decision also noted the absence of a private complaint alleging that the premises were being used as a common gaming house.

The Court considered the case covered by the reasoning in Criminal Petition No. 200807/2017. It applied that decision’s requirement that the prosecution provide material showing how Andar-bahar was played and why the game constituted one of chance rather than skill.

The Court concluded that the prosecution’s case, as presented, did not meet that standard; the seizure of money and the allegation that cards were being played did not, by themselves, sustain the proceedings under the cited provisions. The Court also referred to the absence of a private complaint that the premises were being used as a common gaming house.

Pending applications were disposed of as not surviving for consideration.