Allowed

Tarun Bandhuri Jains v. the State through

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2016CRL.P/201228/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings in a High Court of Karnataka Criminal Petition alleging petitioners were playing snooker and betting. Court held snooker is skill, betting allegations unsupported, and primary allegations unsustainable on trial.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings pending before Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Court at Raichur quashed.

Tarun Bandhuri Jains Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201228/2015

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Tarun Bandhuri Jains Age: 26 years, Occupation: Business, Resident of House No.11-1-25, Near Gandhi Chowk, Raichur – 584 101.

¶9

Krishnakant S/o Ashokkumar Innani Age: 28 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, Resident of House No.7-3-6, Gajagarpet, Raichur.

¶10

Mukesh S/o Sampath Age: 26 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Hyderabad.

¶11

Mohammed Sirajuddin S/o S.M. Hussain, Age: 23 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Beroon Quilla, Raichur.

¶12

Syed Javeen S/o Syed Sadia Age: 23 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of KOT Tallar, Raichur.

¶13

¶14

Ameer Ali S/o Mehboob Ali Age: 32 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Quilla, Raichur. 7. Nitin S/o Kantilal Age: 26 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Navaranga Darwaja, Raichur. 8. Zameer Ahmed S/o Shaik Ahmed Age: 20 years, Occupation Student, Resident of House No.4-13-122, Mangalawarpet, Raichur. 9. Mohammed Hasnain S/o Mohammed Asif Age: Major, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of House No.4-11-58, Mangalawarpet, Raichur. 10. Mohammed Imran S/o Munna Miya Age: 23 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of House No.4-8-97, Mangalawarpet, Raichur. 11. Shaik Aneef S/o Shaik Mohammed Ghouse, Age: 20 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of House No.12-11-26/7, Lalpahadi, Raichur. 12. Mahesh S/o Vithal Age: 23 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of House No.1-9-126,

¶15

¶16

	Ajad Nagar, Raichur.
13.	Chetan Reddy S/o Hema Reddy Age: 23 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of House No.1-4-145/43, Jhoti Colony, Raichur.
14.	Yashwant S/o R. Muralidhar Age: 22 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of House No.5-3-99, Netaji Nagar, Raichur.
15.	Sumit S/o D.K. Muralidhar Age: 23 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of House No.8-11-182/7, Vasavi Nagar, Raichur.
16.	Mohammed Rijvan S/o Mohammed Yousuf Age: 27 years, Occupation: Agriculture, Resident of Jaheerabad, Raichur. … PETITIONERS
(Shri	Avinash A. Uploankar, Advocate)
AND	:
The S	tate through
Sadar Raich	Bazar Police Station, ur. … RESPONDENT
(Shri	P.S. Patil, Government Pleader)

¶17

¶18

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to examine the records and quash the proceedings in Crime No.237/2015 pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate First Class Court at Raichur and also grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit.

¶19

This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioners are arrayed as the accused on the allegation that the petitioners were found playing snooker and on the allegation that they were betting on the game. The proceedings have been initiated for offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

¶22

It is pointed out that snooker is not a game of chance but

¶23

a game of skill. In so far as the allegation that they were betting on as to the winner of the game, is an allegation which cannot be readily accepted. The proceedings having been initiated,

¶24

¶25

notwithstanding that the petitioners were engaged in playing snooker, by itself would not render the activity as gambling or indulging in a game of chance. Therefore, the primary allegations cannot be sustained, even after a full-fledged trial. Hence the petitioners have made out a case for quashing of the proceedings.

¶26

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings

¶27

pending before the Court below are quashed.

¶28

��

¶29

swk

Tarun Bandhuri Jains v. the State through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Bandhuri Jains v. the State through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalu Vs the State

Masjid-E-Habeen Nabi Khana Shaik Roza Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakf and Ors.

Nanu S/O Chandu Pawar Vs Sumitra D/O Keshu Rathod @ Lamani

Rubin S/O Manikappa Vs the State through

Smt. Meerabai W/O Balaram Vs Gundusingh S/O Ramkishan Ors.

Pavan S/O Ramchandra Sagar Vs the State of Karnataka