Allowed

Shri. Mohan Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2024WP/2227/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition and quashed criminal proceedings in Splt.C.No.2403/2021. The court relied on a coordinate bench decision to hold that 'Andar Bahar' is a game of skill, not chance, rendering the offence under the Karnataka Police Act non-attractable.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Splt.C.No.2403/2021 are quashed.

Shri. Mohan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:21097 WP No. 2227 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2227 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI. MOHAN KUMAR S/O. CHUNCHE GOWDA ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶10

SHRI.CHOWDE GOWDA S/O. GURULINGE GOWDA ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶11

SHRI. RAGHU S/O. KONE GOWDA, ABOUT 37 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SHRI. JAGADISH S/O. JAVARE GOWDA, ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶14

SHRI. ASHOK KUMAR S/O. PUTTE GOWDA, ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶15

SHRI. BALAJI S/O. NAGARAJU ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶16

SHRI. KEMPE GOWDA S/O. NINGE GOWDA, ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:21097 WP No. 2227 of 2024

¶19

SHRI. ASHOK S/O. SIDDE GOWDA ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶20

THE PETITIONERS 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK – 571 438 MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. PETITIONERS NO.5 & 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF SHANTHIKOPLU VILLAGE AREKERE HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK – 571 438 MANDYA DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE.

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI D.BASAVARAJAPPA,ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY OFFICER IN CHARGE OF POLICE STATION, AREKERE – 571 415 SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK – 571 438 MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE.

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHI, HCGP)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.CASE NO.2403/2021 DTD 17.06.2021 AND ORDER SHEET RELATED TO SAME CASE DTD 22.05.2020 AND

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:21097 WP No. 2227 of 2024

¶30

ONWARDS AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND A ON THE FILE OF COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, (JR-DI) AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA, MANDYA DISTRICT WITH THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THE ABUSE PROCESS OF COURT.

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in Spl.C.No.2403/2021 pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Srirangapatna, Mandya District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 271 and 149 of the IPC and Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

¶34

Heard Sri D. Basavarajappa, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Harish Ganapathi, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶35

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.100877/2014 , disposed on 13.06.2014, which read as follows:

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21097 WP No. 2227 of 2024

¶37

"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”.

¶38

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;

¶39

“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

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:21097 WP No. 2227 of 2024

¶41

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”.

¶42

(Emphasis supplied)

¶43

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.

¶44

For the reasons aforementioned, the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) The *Writ Petition is allowed.

¶47

*Corrected vide Chamber order dated 19.08.2024

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:21097 WP No. 2227 of 2024

¶49

¶50

(ii) The proceedings in Spl.C.No.2403/2021 pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Srirangapatna, Mandya District, stand quashed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Shri. Mohan Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Mohan Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Almas Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. a N Chandra Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

Rakesh Kr Dutta @ Rakesh Kumar Dutta Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Varun v Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Hemantha P Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr Maxim Mendonsa Vs the State of Karnataka