Allowed¶62

Manjunatha a v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Sept 2025CRL.P/11589/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: andar-bahar; andarbahar; game of skill vs game of chance; gaming; playing cards in private residence; Sections 79 and 80 Karnataka Police Act 1963; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 528 BNSS; quashing of criminal proceedings at threshold; inherent jurisdiction; abuse of process; miscarriage of justice; C.C. No.315/2025; Cr. No.25/2024 Extension P.S. Chitradurga; Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court Chitradurga; W.P. No.2227/2024; Crl.P. No.100877/2014; 1971(2) Mys. L.J. 187 Chickarangappa; 1977 (1) K.L.J. 274 Eranna. Single-judge bench (Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.), decided 22-09-2025; petition allowed and proceedings in C.C. No.315/2025 quashed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings pending in C.C. No.315/2025 before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court, Chitradurga, quashed qua the petitioners. ¶62

Manjunatha a Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Proceedings pending in C.C. No.315/2025 before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court, Chitradurga, quashed qua the petitioners.

¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether participation in the game of 'andar-bahar' constitutes a punishable offence under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, such that the proceedings in C.C. No.315/2025 against the petitioners should be quashed.

¶37

Court's answer

Participation in the game of 'andar-bahar' does not constitute an offence under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963; consequently the very foundation of the prosecution in C.C. No.315/2025 stands vitiated, and allowing the proceedings to linger would amount to an abuse of the process of law and cause unnecessary harassment and a miscarriage of justice.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

The ingredients of the alleged offences are wholly absent and, having regard to the binding precedent of the co-ordinate Bench, the possibility of securing a conviction in the present case is remote and bleak.

¶54

Key takeaways

This Court finds it a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to interdict the proceedings at the threshold, thereby preventing misuse of judicial process and safeguarding the ends of justice.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 11589 of 2025 (filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS) by nine residents of Chitradurga arraigned in C.C. No.315/2025 (Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court, Chitradurga), arising out of Cr. No.25/2024 of Extension P.S., Chitradurga, for offences p/u/s 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, on the allegation that they were found playing 'andar-bahar' within a residence. Relying on the co-ordinate Bench decision in W.P. No.2227/2024 — which reproduced Crl.P. No.100877/2014 and the declarations in 1971(2) Mys. L.J. 187 (Chickarangappa & Others Vs. State of Mysore) and 1977 (1) K.L.J. 274 (Eranna Vs. State of Karnataka) that 'andar-bahar' is a game of skill and not a game of chance, so that Sections 79 and 80 are not attracted — the Court held that the alleged act falls outside the penal provisions invoked, that the ingredients of the offences are wholly absent and conviction remote and bleak, and that continuance would abuse the judicial process. Exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court interdicted the proceedings at the threshold and quashed them. Petition allowed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:38473 CRL.P No. 11589 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11589 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANJUNATHA A S/O. A.V.AKKAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. 9H CROSS, KHB COLONY, CHITRADURGA TOWN- 577 501

¶9

KENCHAPPA S/O. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. R/O. 9 CROSS, IUDP LAYOUT, CHITRADURGA TOWN- 577 501.

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

KASHINATHA K M S/O. KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. R/O. NEHRU NAGAR, 4TH CROSS, CHITRADURGA TOWN- 577 501.

¶12

JAGADEESH S/O. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. 4TH CROSS, JOGHIMATTI ROAD, CHITRADURGA TOWN-577501

¶13

PRASAD V.S. S/O. VASUDEVACHARI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. R/O. 9TH CROSS, KHB COLONY, 3RD STAGE, IUDP LAYOUT, CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577501.

¶14

SITHA RAMA REDDY A. S/O. KRISHNA REDDY

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:38473 CRL.P No. 11589 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. R/O. NEAR BASAPPA HOSPITAL, CHANNAPPA LAYOUT, KELAGOTE, CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577501.

¶18

BALAKRISHNA C.N. S/O. NARYANA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. R/O. NEAR SURYAPUTRA CIRCLE, CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577501.

¶19

CHANDRA NAIK S/O. LAKSHMAN NAIK, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. R/O. PWD QUARTERS, JCR, CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577501.

¶20

DELIP @ MANJUNATHA S/O. RANGANATHA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS. R/O. GOPALPURA ROAD, 2ND CROSS, CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577501.

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI. S G RAJENDRA REDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EXTENSION POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA REPTD. BY ITS S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP)

¶27

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.315/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M COURT CHITRADURGA ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.25/2024 OF EXTENSION P.S. CHITRADURGA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 79 AND 80 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:38473 CRL.P No. 11589 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for respondent.

¶35

The essence of the prosecution’s allegation is

¶36

that the petitioner was allegedly found engaged in playing the game of “andar-bahar” within the confines of his residence. On the basis of this allegation, a criminal case was registered, and the Investigating Officer, being of the opinion that the petitioner had committed a cognizable offence, proceeded to file a charge sheet in C.C. No.315/2025.

¶37

The question as to whether a citizen found participating in a game of chance, specifically “andarbahar,” constitutes a punishable offence has already been examined and adjudicated by a co-ordinate Bench of this

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38473 CRL.P No. 11589 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Court in W.P. No.2227/2024. In that judgment, the Court considered the scope and applicability of the relevant statutory provisions in the context of games of chance played in private or public spaces. It is apposite to reproduce paragraph 3 of the said judgment, which also refers to an earlier decision rendered in Crl.P. No.100877/2014, for a proper understanding of the legal position, as follows:

¶41

"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:

¶42

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".

¶43

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;

¶44

"In this view of the matter, the essential ingredient of the offence was

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:38473 CRL.P No. 11589 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

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".

¶49

(Emphasis supplied)

¶50

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."

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38473 CRL.P No. 11589 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

In light of the categorical findings recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench, wherein it has been held that 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, the very foundation of the prosecution in C.C. No.315/2025 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 to the petitioner and cause a miscarriage of justice.

¶54

Having regard to the binding precedent laid down 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,

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:38473 CRL.P No. 11589 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

this Court finds it a fit case 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.

¶59

6. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶60

following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶63

(ii) The proceedings pending in C.C.No.315/2025 pending before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court, Chitradurga, are hereby quashed.

¶64

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE