Sri Venkataramana v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2025CRL.P/10504/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge (Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.), High Court of Karnataka, 18.09.2025, CRL.P No.10504 of 2025. Topics: andar-bahar; game of skill versus game of chance; gaming offences; Sections 79 and 80, Karnataka Police Act, 1963; Section 482 Cr.P.C. inherent jurisdiction; Section 528 BNSS; quashing of charge sheet/criminal case; abuse of process; miscarriage of justice. Precedents: W.P. No.2227 of 2024 (followed); Crl.P.No.100877/2014 (referred); Chickarangappa v. State of Mysore, 1971(2) Mys. L.J. 187 (referred); Eranna v. State of Karnataka, 1977 (1) K.L.J. 274 (referred). Outcome: petition allowed; proceedings in C.C. No.449/2015 quashed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; proceedings in CC No.449/2015 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, quashed. ¶¶59

Sri Venkataramana Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; proceedings in CC No.449/2015 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, quashed.

¶¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in CC No.449/2015, arising from an allegation that the petitioners played andar-bahar and were charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, are liable to be quashed in exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶¶31

Court's answer

In light of the categorical findings of the Co-ordinate Bench, participation in a game of chance such as andar-bahar does not constitute an offence under any provision of law, much less under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963; consequently, the very foundation of the prosecution in CC No.449 of 2015 stands vitiated.

¶¶48

Ratio / Principle

Allowing the proceedings to linger would amount to an abuse of the process of law, result in unnecessary harassment of the petitioners, and cause a miscarriage of justice.

¶¶48

Key takeaways

The ingredients of the alleged offences are wholly absent and the possibility of securing a conviction is remote and bleak.ratio¶¶50
This is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interdict the proceedings at the threshold, preventing misuse of judicial process and safeguarding the ends of justice.ratio¶¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing — inherent jurisdiction (Section 482 Cr.P.C.; petition filed u/S 528 BNSS) — C.C. No.449/2015 (II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi), arising from Crime No.17/2015 of Manipal Police Station for offences u/Ss.79 and 80, Karnataka Police Act, 1963, on the allegation that the petitioners played andar-bahar in their residence — Held, following the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.2227 of 2024, which in turn reproduced Crl.P.No.100877/2014 and the decisions in Chickarangappa v. State of Mysore (1971(2) Mys. L.J. 187) and Eranna v. State of Karnataka (1977 (1) K.L.J. 274) declaring andar-bahar a game of skill not attracting Sections 79 and 80 — foundation of the prosecution stands vitiated; ingredients of the alleged offences wholly absent; possibility of conviction remote and bleak; continuance would be an abuse of process and cause miscarriage of justice — inherent jurisdiction exercised to interdict proceedings at the threshold — petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:37511 CRL.P No. 10504 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10504 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI VENKATARAMANA S/O JANARDHANA ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT KALIKAMBA BHAJANA MANDIR GARADI MAJALU TENKANIDIYOOR VILLAGE UDUPI - 576106.

¶9

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SRI. SURESH SHETTY S/O RAJEEVA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT SREYAS MELKARJE HOSOOR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK UDUPI - 576233

¶11

SRI. GILBERT S/O DOMING NORONHA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR PAMBOOR MANASA SCHOOL BELLE VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK UDUPI - 576120.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI: AMRUTHESH C., ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:37511 CRL.P No. 10504 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SHO MANIPAL POLICE STATION MANIPAL, UDUPI - 576104. REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SMT: RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL CASE IN CC NO.449/2015, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI REGISTERED PURSUANT TO THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY RESPONDENT MANIPAL POLICE IN CRIME NO.17/2015 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 79 AND 80 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Learned Additional SPP is directed to take notice for the respondent.

¶26

The gist of the prosecution’s allegation is that the petitioners were found engaged in playing the game of andarbahar in their residence, pursuant to which a criminal case

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:37511 CRL.P No. 10504 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

came to be registered. The Investigating Officer, being of the view that the petitioners had committed an offence, proceeded to lay a charge sheet in C.C. No.449 of 2015.

¶31

The issue as to whether a citizen found playing a game of chance, namely andar-bahar , constitutes an offence has already been considered and decided by a Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.2227 of 2024. It is apposite for this Court to reproduce paragraph 3 of the said judgment, which in turn refers to an earlier judgment rendered in Criminal Petition No.100877 of 2014, and reads as follows:

¶32

"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:

¶33

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".

¶34

6. In the ruling reported in 1977 (1) K.L.J. 274 (supra), this Court has categorically held that, game

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:37511 CRL.P No. 10504 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

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 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".

¶40

(Emphasis supplied)

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:37511 CRL.P No. 10504 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

the issue on all its fours, I deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings, qua the petitioners."

¶46

In light of the categorical findings recorded by the

¶47

Co-ordinate Bench, wherein, it has been held that participation in a game of chance, such as andar-bahar , does not constitute

¶48

an offence under any provision of law, much less under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, the very foundation of the prosecution in CC No.449 of 2015 stands vitiated. Once the alleged act itself does not fall within the ambit of the penal provisions invoked, the continuation of the proceedings would serve no legal purpose. On the contrary, allowing such proceedings to linger would not only amount to an abuse of the process of law but would also result in unnecessary harassment of the petitioners and cause a miscarriage of justice.

¶49

Having regard to the binding precedent laid down

¶50

by the Co-ordinate Bench and keeping in view the fact that the ingredients of the alleged offences are wholly absent, the possibility of securing a conviction in the present case is remote and bleak. In these circumstances, this Court finds it a fit case

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:37511 CRL.P No. 10504 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to interdict the proceedings at the threshold, thereby preventing the misuse of judicial process and safeguarding the ends of justice.

¶55