Allowed

Veeresh R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2024CRL.P/457/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court criminal petition filed by seven accused persons prayed for quashing of proceedings under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act for playing Andar-Bahar. Relying on a coordinate bench judgment, the court held that the premises were not a 'common gaming house' and quashed the proceedings as an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.7341/2022 arising from Crime No.131/2022 insofar as it relates to petitioners were quashed.

Veeresh R Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10523 CRL.P No. 457 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.457 OF 2024 (482)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VEERESH R., S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1842/B, SS LAYOUT, A BLOCK, 1^ST CROSS, DAVANAGERE-577004.

¶9

MANJUNATHA M., S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 1963 8^TH CROSS, SS LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE-577004.

¶10

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

ABHINANDAN, S/O MALLIKARUNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O SIDDAVEERAPPA BADAVANE, 10^TH CROSS, DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE-577005.

¶12

RAHAMATHULLA, S/O BABASAB, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O JAGALLI ROAD, AZADA NAGARA, MALEBENNUR HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE-577530.

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10523 CRL.P No. 457 of 2024

¶14

HANUMANTHAPPA S/O DODDA HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O HARALALLI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE-577530.

¶15

KARNA H., S/O SHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O ERABUDIHALLA VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE-577601.

¶16

YAMUNAPPA, S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O NEAR SHANKARANGA AUTOSTAND, SIDDESHWARA BADAVANE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577601.

¶17

CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O 3^RD MAIN, 8^TH CROSS, YALLAMMA NAGARA, DAVANAGERE-577601.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. V. B. SIDDARAMAIAH., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY EXTENSION POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶22

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILIDNG, BANGALORE-560001.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10523 CRL.P No. 457 of 2024

¶24

SRI B. S. BASAVARAJ, FATHER NAME AND MAJOR, AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER THE DY SP, DCRB UNIT, DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)

¶27

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.7341/2022 (CR.NO.131/2022) REGISTERED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.79,80 OF KP ACT 1963 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, DAVANAGERE REGISTERED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT THE EXTENSION POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE INITIATED ON THE COMPLAINT OF THE 2^ND RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONERS.

¶28

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The case of the prosecution is that on 20.07.2022, on receiving credible information, a raid was conducted on the house belonging to accused No.1 and it was found that, the accused herein along with other accused were found gambling playing Andar-Bahar and a sum of Rs.6,02,000/-, bed sheet and 52 playing cards were recovered from the accused herein.

¶31

Other accused has approached this Court in Crl.P.No.2994/2023, and this Court by the Order dated

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:10523 CRL.P No. 457 of 2024

¶34

07.08.2023, quashed the proceedings against the said accused by observing as follows:

¶35

“5. The issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. K.N. Suresh -vsState of Karnataka and Another, reported in ILR 2012 KAR 1443, wherein, at paras-5 and 6, it is held as follows:

¶36

"5. The case of the prosecution is that the game was played inside the house bearing No. 552, First floor, 5th cross, 8th main, Indiranagar, Bangalore and the said premises cannot be called as "Common gaming house. "The definition of "Common gaming house", as defined under Section 2(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, is as follows:

¶37

"Common gaming-house" means a building, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel or place in which any instrument 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 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, vehicle, vessel or place for the purposes of gaming".

¶38

6. It is seen that there is not complaint by anybody against the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10523 CRL.P No. 457 of 2024

¶40

registration of the case by the Police is sheer abuse of process of law and therefore the proceedings instituted by the Police is required to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings in Crime No.411/2011 is hereby quashed. It is needless to state that the property seized in the case required to be returned to the person from whom the same has been seized and therefore, it is directed that the Police shall return the property to the person from whom the same has been seized".

¶41

6. In the instant case, the accused herein were playing Andhar Bahar along with other accused inside the house belonging to the accused No.1 which does not come under the purview of "common gaming house" as defined under Section 2(3) of Karnataka Police Act.

¶42

7. The accused herein along with other accused have not played Andhar Bahar in a common gaming house or in public place so as to constitute the commission of the offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law.

¶43

Therefore, this petition also requires to be disposed of in

¶44

the light of the Order passed in the aforesaid petition.

¶45

Accordingly, petition is allowed .

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:10523 CRL.P No. 457 of 2024

¶48

The impugned proceeding in C.C.No.7341/2022 arising out of Crime No.131/2022 pending on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Davanagere, insofar it

¶49

relates to petitioners is hereby quashed .

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Veeresh R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeresh R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prestige Bougainvillea Home Owners Association, Vs Assistant Executive Engineer (E)

Mohammed Sadiq @ Saleem Salman Vs the State

B S Devaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Kempamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka

Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka