Sri Venkatesh N C v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2025CRL.P/7499/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings; CRL.P No. 7499 of 2024; High Court of Karnataka; S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.; S.482 Cr.P.C.; S.528 BNSS; Sections 269 & 270 IPC (Covid-19 negligent/malignant act likely to spread infection); Section 80 Karnataka Police Act; Andar Bahar game of skill not game of chance; card game; wild boar; C.C.No.896/2021; Crime No.46/2020; cognizance order 12.07.2021; 1st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Chikkaballapura; abuse of process; Rajesh v. State of Karnataka Crl.P.No.7840/2025; Manjunath E; Hasan Raj; Legends Culture Association; Chickarangappa; Eranna.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned proceedings in C.C.No.896/2021 arising out of Crime No.46/2020 on the file of 1st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, quashed. ¶145

Sri Venkatesh N C Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶145

Issue for consideration

Whether the material on record (FIR, complaint, charge sheet, witness statements, documents) establishes that the petitioners committed offences punishable under Sections 269 and 270 IPC by indulging in activity likely to spread the prevailing Covid-19 virus. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

Neither the impugned FIR/complaint nor the charge sheet material, statements of witnesses or documents establish that the petitioners indulged in any activity likely to spread the prevailing Covid-19 virus; the petitioners had undergone a Covid-19 test and tested negative, indicating that the ingredients of offences under Sections 269 and 270 IPC (negligent or malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life) are conspicuously absent from the record.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Except for the allegation that the petitioners were cooking wild boar and playing Andar Bahar, there is no material to establish that they were guilty of offences punishable under Sections 269 and 270 IPC, and the impugned proceedings on that count deserve to be quashed.

¶45

Key takeaways

Under identical circumstances this Court has already taken the view that Andar Bahar is a game of skill and not a game of chance; consequently, the petitioners cannot be incriminated for the offence under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, as held in Rajesh and ors Vs. State of Karnataka (Crl.P.No.7840/2025) and other judgments.ratio¶46
Continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law, warranting interference of this Court in the present petition.ratio¶142

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS — quashing of cognizance order dated 12.07.2021 and entire proceedings in C.C.No.896/2021 (arising out of Crime No.46/2020, Chikkaballapura Rural P.S.) for offences punishable under Sections 269, 270 IPC and Section 80 Karnataka Police Act — allegation that petitioners were found playing Andar Bahar and cooking wild boar at a farm house (complaint/FIR dated 05.04.2020); FIR originally invoked Sections 429, 270 IPC, Sections 25(1AA), 27(1)(A) Indian Arms Act, Section 51 Wild Life (Protection) Act and Section 87 Karnataka Police Act, but charge sheet confined to Sections 269, 270 IPC and Section 80 KP Act — Held: (i) no material establishes that petitioners indulged in any activity likely to spread Covid-19; petitioners tested negative; ingredients of Sections 269/270 IPC conspicuously absent; (ii) Andar Bahar is a game of skill, not a game of chance, so petitioners cannot be incriminated under Section 80 KP Act, following Rajesh and ors v. State of Karnataka, Crl.P.No.7840/2025 (12.06.2025) and the line of authority therein (Manjunath E; Hasan Raj; Legends Culture Association; Chickarangappa; Eranna); (iii) continuation of proceedings would be abuse of process — Petition allowed; proceedings quashed qua petitioners (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:21372 CRL.P No. 7499 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7499 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI VENKATESH N C S/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NALLAKADIRENAHALLI, BALAKUNTANAHALLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 211.

¶9

SRI DAYANANAD C W/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NALLAKADIRENAHALLI, BALAKUNTANAHALLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 211.

¶10

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI MADHUSUDHAN M @ M MADHU

¶12

S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR

¶13

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO: 39, 4^TH CROSS, NAGADENAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 056.

¶14

SRI DEVARAJA S/O MUTHURAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT: MOTLUR VILLAGE BALAKUNTANAHALLI CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 211.

¶15

SRI VENKATESH @ VENKATESH MURTHY M S S/O LATE SINGALAPPA

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:21372 CRL.P No. 7499 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT MOTLUR VILLAGE BALAKUNTANAHALLI CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 211.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SMT. NAGAMANI V.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIKKABALLAPURA RURAL P S REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING

¶23

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶24

SRI RAVISHANKAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS DYSP, CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶27

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 12.07.2021 FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.896/2021, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 269,270 OF IPC, 80 OF KP ACT, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE 1st ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:

¶31

“Wherefore, the petitioners named above pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 12.07.2021 for taking cognizance and to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.896/2021 for the alleged

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21372 CRL.P No. 7499 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

offence punishable under Section 269, 270 of IPC and Section 80 of Karnataka Police Act, which is pending before 1^st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura, to meet the ends of justice.”

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶36

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.2-complainant lodged the impugned complaint dated 05.04.2020 inter alia alleging that when he went to a farm house, he found the petitioners playing Andar Bahar game and cooking wild boar and were attempting to transport the meat at which time, the respondents are alleged to have apprehended the petitioner and filed the impugned FIR registered as Crime No.46/2020 dated 05.04.2020 against the petitioners for alleged offences punishable under Sections 429 and 270 of IPC, Sections 25(1AA) and 27(1)(A) of Indian Arms Act, Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act and Section 87 of Karnataka Police Act. In pursuance of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for alleged offences punishable under Section 269 and

¶37

270 of IPC and Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, by deleting/dropping the remaining offences from the charge sheet

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21372 CRL.P No. 7499 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

which was submitted to the Trial Court, which took cognizance of the said offences and initiated the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.896/2021 against the petitioners, who are before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶41

The material on record discloses that insofar as offences punishable under Sections 269 and 270 of IPC are concerned, neither the impugned FIR or complaint nor the charge sheet material, statement of witnesses, documents etc., establish that the petitioners indulge in any activity that was likely to spread the prevailing Covid-19 virus. On the other hand, the accused had undergone a Covid-19 test, in which they were tested negative, thereby indicating that the ingredients constituting offences punishable under Sections 269 and 270 of IPC i.e., negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life or the act of the petitioners malignantly likely to spread infection of any disease dangerous to life were conspicuously absent and missing from the material on record.

¶42

Under these circumstances, except for the fact that the petitioners are alleged to have been cooking wild boar and playing the game Andar Bahar, there is no other material to establish that

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21372 CRL.P No. 7499 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

the petitioners were guilty of offences punishable under Sections 269 and 270 of IPC and the impugned proceedings in this regard deserve to be quashed.

¶46

Insofar as alleged offences punishable under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act by the petitioners who are alleged to have been playing the card game, Andar Bahar is concerned, under identical circumstances, this Court has already taken a view that the said game is a game of skill and not a game of chance and consequently, the petitioners cannot be incriminated for these offences also as held in various judgments including in the case of Rajesh and ors Vs. State of Karnataka – Crl.P.No.7840/2025 dated 12.06.2025 which reads as under:

¶47

In this petition, petitioners seeks the following relief:

¶48

"Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.736/2025 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, I/C Bantwal, registered by the police of Bantwal Rural Police Station in Crime No.112/2024, on 17.12.2024, for the offence punishable under Sections 79, 80 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963, against the petitioners, in the interest of justice."

¶49

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for respondents and perused the materials on record.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:21372 CRL.P No. 7499 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate on 17.12.2025, the Police Inspector who was on patrolling duty along with his staff, received credible information that some persons were playing Ulayi-Pidayi game of cards in the house of one Nishanth, situated at Badagabelluru of Bantwal Taluk. He secured permission from the Court to register case as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C raided the placed, seized all the materials and registered FIR in Crime No.112/2024, which is presently pending in C.C.No.736/2025 before the trial Court, which is assailed in the present petition.

¶54

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, in order to point out apart from the fact that the trial Court passed the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 taking cognizance without assigning any reason and by passing a cryptic, laconic and unreasoned order without any application of mind. The game, which was allegedly played by the petitioners being a 'Game of Cards, which is essentially and predominantly a 'Game of Skill' and not a 'Game of Chance', the petitioners could not be incriminated for the aforesaid offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act as held by this Court in the following judgments:

¶55

(i) Sri Manjunath E and others vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.P.No.8396/2017;

¶56

(ii) Sri Hasan Raj and others vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.P.No.8395/2017; and

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:21372 CRL.P No. 7499 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

(iii) M/s. Legends Culture Association (R) and another vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.P.No.8981/2024.

¶61

It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.

¶62

5. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶63

6. In relation to offences punishable in respect of 'Game of Chance' and 'Game of Skill', this Court held as under:

¶64

(i) Sri Manjunath E's case supra:

¶65

"The petitioners have called in question the proceedings pending before the MMTC, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.20386/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 79 & 80 of the Karnataka Police Act.

¶66

2. A strong legal point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the entire proceedings is hit by Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., as the Respondent- Police have not taken any permission from the Magistrate to investigate the matter and to file a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Court. He contended that, even the entire charge sheet is translated into evidence, there is no material to show that the Game played by the accused ie., ‘Fantastic Three Dice Bowling’ is a game of chance or it is a game of skill, that fact is not mentioned in the complaint nor it has been explained as to how the game being played by the accused and it is only a game of chance.

¶67

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this court reported in Criminal Petition No.3082/2007 dated 22.10.2008, wherein this court has reiterated that, the investigation done by the police is with regard to non-cognizable offences without taking permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of Cr.PC., hence, the entire proceedings are vitiated. Even if the court has gone to the extent of saying that, mere permission by the Magistrate without application of judicious mind with regard to the facts and without recording his satisfaction with regard to the

¶68

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:21372 CRL.P No. 7499 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

ground to believe that non-cognizable offence is committed, even such blanket permission is also invalid in the eye of law. In this particular case, the entire charge sheet/FIR does not disclose that the police have taken any permission from the learned Magistrate to investigate the case and to file a report. As rightly contended by the learned counsel, though it is stated in the charge sheet that the people in Puradamma Recreation Association, Dynamic- 3, No.11 & 12, Moto Rayal Arcade, Brigade Road, Bengaluru, were playing a game with ‘Fentastic-3 with the help of a dice which has been pasted with stickers of various brands viz., Addidas, Nike, Reebok, Joker, Fila, Puma Stickers, but nowhere it is stated as to how the game was played and whether it required any skill or it is a pure game of chance. In the absence of such elucidation of facts in the entire charge sheet, even if the entire charge sheet is translated into evidence, it will not give any indication whether the game alleged to have been played is a pure game of chance or skill. Therefore, in the absence of such materials and in view of the above illegality during the course of investigation, in my opinion, the proceedings are not sustainable either in law or on facts. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following.

¶72

ORDER

¶73

The petition is allowed . The proceedings in C.C. No.20386/2016 (arising out of Crime No.35/2016 on the file of Cubbon Park Layout Police Station, Bengaluru) registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 79 & 80 of K.P. Act, and now pending on the file of Metropolitan magistrate (Traffic Court-I), Bengaluru, and all proceedings therein, insofar as the petitioners herein concerned, are hereby quashed."

¶74

(ii) Sri Hasan Raj's case supra:

¶75

"Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned SPP-II, appearing for the Respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶76

2. The petition is filed seeking quashing of registration of FIR in Crime No.197/2017 and further investigation thereon. The records disclose that, the SubInspector of Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru, has registered a case in NCRNo.133/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 79 & 80 of the Karnataka Police Act (for short, ‘K.P. Act’) and after obtaining permission from

¶77

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:21372 CRL.P No. 7499 of 2024

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

the Magistrate, he started investigation for the above said offences. The records also disclose that, the said permission appears to have been granted. Even considering that the permission being granted by the Magistrate, it appears it is after the Police Officer receiving credible information with regard to the above said offences and going to the spot and after conducting investigation to some extent, thereafter permission was obtained. The learned Magistrate has simply granted permission by mentioning a single word ‘Permitted’. There is no application of mind to the contents of the complaint or to the report submitted by the Police Officer and no satisfaction of the Magistrate is recorded before permitting for investigation. Even the learned Magistrate has not mentioned the time at which permission has been taken and as to whether it is before or after starting-up of investigation.

¶81

3. At this stage, it is worth to mention here the observation made by this court in Crl.P 3082/2007 dated 22.10.2008 at Para-9, which reads as under:-

¶82

“Even otherwise a perusal of the order of the Judge, which is in manuscript written over the representation by the Sub- Inspector of Police, does not disclose application of mind. As noticed supra, the JMFC ought to have applied his mind to the facts, satisfied himself as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a non-cognizable offence is committed and having not done so, the act is both, arbitrary and capricious.

¶83

Therefore, it goes without saying that before permitting for investigation, the Magistrate has to go through the contents of the report submitted by the Police Officer and record his satisfaction with regard to the grounds to believe that non-cognizable offence is committed and it requires investigation by the police and thereafter, he has to permit the police to investigate the matter. Such things are not there, sofar as this case is concerned, except mentioning in a word ‘Permitted”. It appears that the Magistrate has not applied his judicious mind before passing such an order.

¶84

4. One more thing required to be considered by this court is that, the Police Officer has stated in the complaint that, on 12.09.2017,one Mr.Prakash, the Police Officer (Special Investigation Team) has appeared before the

¶85

10 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:21372 CRL.P No. 7499 of 2024

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

Sub-Inspector of Police, Cubbon Park, Bengaluru, and stated that he has visited the Nota Royal Arcade No.158, Shop No.11 and 12, Ground Floor, Puradamma Recreation Associates which are the video game shops and he found that some people are playing Video Games with the help of machines. Except stating that, nothing has been stated in the said complaint as to whether the said game is a game of chance or a Game of skill and as to how it amounts to offence under Sections 79 & 80 of the K.P. Act. Therefore, there is absolute no information with regard to the game being played as to whether it is a game of chance only or any skill is required.

¶89

5. In the above circumstances, there are serious lacunas in registration of case and investigation in connection of the said case concerned. Therefore, in my opinion, if such investigation ordered to be continued, it would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed. However, the Jurisdictional Police are at liberty to follow the procedure under Section 155(2) of Cr.PC. properly and re-investigate the matter, if need arises, in accordance with law.

¶90

With the above observation, the petition is disposed of ."

¶91

(iii) M/s Legends Culture Association (R)'s case supra;

¶92

"The petitioners are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.228/2024, pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holalkere, Chitradurga District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

¶93

2. Heard Sri Bharath Kumar V., learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgments rendered by the co-ordinate benches of this Court in Crl.P.No.100877/2014, disposed on 13.06.2014, which read as follows:

¶94

"5. On analysing the above said provision of law, this Court has rendered a decision reported in

¶95

11 -

¶96

NC: 2025:KHC:21372 CRL.P No. 7499 of 2024

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

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”.

¶99

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;

¶100

“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 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”.

¶101

and in criminal revision petition No.100031/2014, disposed on 03.03.2015, it is held as follows:

¶102

12 -

¶103

NC: 2025:KHC:21372 CRL.P No. 7499 of 2024

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

"This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. by the State, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate in releasing the interim custody of the cash amount in favour of accused No.2/respondent No.2.

¶106

2. Succinctly stated, the P.S.I. of Honnavar Police Station charge sheeted the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 87 of K.P. Act. The accused were on bail. During the raid the Investigating Officer had seized cash of Rs.34,468/-, which is alleged to be the gaming money. Respondent No.2 moved an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of the said amount. The application was contested by the prosecution. The court below allowed the application and released the interim custody of cash amount in favour of the applicant /respondent No.2 on executing an indemnity bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum. However, care was taken by the court below by directing accused No.1 to assist the C.M.O. of the Court to take the photographs of the currency notes at his cost.

¶107

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner – State submits that the trial Court has lost sight of the fact that the amount was seized while the accused were indulged in playing Andar Bahar. In the event prosecution successfully proves its case, said money is liable to be confiscated to the State Government. The court had acted on the fabricated documents produced by the accused No.2 projecting that the money belong to Srikumar Roadlines, under whom he was employed. Though the prosecution had disputed the said document without probing about the veracity of the document, the trial Court has hurriedly released the interim custody of the cash amount. In fact the said cash amount is required to be marked in evidence during the trial. The currency notes are not perishable in nature and there was no dire necessity to release the interim custody of the cash amount in favour of second applicant. The accused No.5 has

¶108

13 -

¶109

NC: 2025:KHC:21372 CRL.P No. 7499 of 2024

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

pleaded guilty and was imposed fine, that strengthens the case of prosecution. In the judgment of this Court reported in 1993 CRL.L.J. 3109 in the case of T. Narayanaswamy vs. State and Others, it has been held that release of money seized for the interim custody is bad in law. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside

¶112

4. In reply, Sri Anoop G. Deshpande, learned counsel for R1 to R4 and R6 to R7 submits that the impugned order being in the nature of interlocutory order is not amenable to the revision jurisdiction. Hence, the very petition itself is not maintainable. In fact, the money seized was not the gaming money, but it belongs to his employer Srikumar Roadlines and the court below having satisfied about his contention was pleased to release the interim custody to his possession. However, the interest of State is protected by directing him to execute the indemnity bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum. Even the interest of the prosecution about the identification of the currency notes is also taken care by directing him to assist the C.M.O. of the Court at his cost in taking photographs of the currency notes.

¶113

5. Respondent No.5 is served and not

¶114

represented.

¶115

6. As regards the first contention about the maintainability of the revision petition, by a catena of judicial pronouncements of this Court and other High Courts, it is held that the release of interim custody of the seized property is the nature of adjudication of the rights of the parties in reference to the said property. The said order is amenable for revision jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Hence, there is no merit in the contention that this petition is not maintainable.

¶116

7. As regards the merit of the impugned order is concerned, the court below being convinced with a certificate produced by the second applicant issued by his employer Srikumar Roadlines and also daily

¶117

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:21372 CRL.P No. 7499 of 2024

¶118

HC-KAR

¶119

enquiry report dated 14.11.2012 has inferred that he is an employee of the said Roadlines. Keeping open the question of the ownership of the seized property / cash amount in question the court below has ordered interim custody by taking the photographs of currency notes and also by calling upon the applicant to execute the indemnity bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum.

¶120

8. Under the circumstances, I hold that the impugned has not prejudiced the case of the State and it is not illegal. The grounds urged by the State lacks merits and does not call for interference of this Court. Accordingly, petition is rejected".

¶121

In the light of the afore-extracted judgments rendered by the co-ordinate benches 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 petitioner.

¶122

4. For the reasons aforementioned, the following:

¶123

ORDER

¶124

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶125

(ii) The impugned Crime No.228/2024, pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Holalkere, Chitradurga District, stands quashed.

¶126

I.A.No.1/2024 also stands disposed, as a consequence."

¶127

7. As held by this Court in the aforesaid judgments, in the event of a person participates/plays a 'Game of Skill', he cannot be said to have committed offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, which are applicable only to 'Game of Chance' and not to 'Game of Skill'.

¶128

15 -

¶129

NC: 2025:KHC:21372 CRL.P No. 7499 of 2024

¶130

HC-KAR

¶131

8. In the instant case, the material on record discloses that the petitioners, who were playing 'Game of Cards’, which is a 'Game of Skill' and not a 'Game of Chance' at the time of raid, cannot be said to have committed the aforesaid offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, which only relates to 'Game of chance' and the same are not applicable to a 'Game of Cards, which is essentially and predominantly a 'Game of Skill'.

¶132

9. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings, qua the petitioners, deserve to be quashed.

¶133

10. In the result, I pass the following:

¶134

ORDER

¶135

i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶136

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.736/2025 (arising out of F.I.R. in Crime No.112/2024) on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, I/C Bantwal, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed.

¶137

iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners, in particular petitioner No.35, to file appropriate application before the Trial Court for release of the properties.

¶138

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:21372 CRL.P No. 7499 of 2024

¶139

HC-KAR

¶140

iv) In the event, if such an application is filed by the petitioners, the Trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.”

¶141

Under these circumstances, I am of the considered

¶142

opinion that continuation of impugned proceedings qua the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference of this Court in the present petition.

¶143

In the result, I pass the following:

¶144

ORDER

¶145

i) The petition is hereby allowed.

¶146

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.896/2021 arising out of Crime No.46/2020 on the file of 1^st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura insofar as the petitioners are concerned are hereby quashed.

¶147

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶148

SV/MDS

¶149

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri Venkatesh N C v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkatesh N C v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. H S Devaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Venkatesh R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishnoji Rao Vs the State by Kengeri Police Station

Sri.Prashanthu K.M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Murali Krishna S., Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Sayyad Uruz Hydar Vs State of Karnataka