Mr Abhishek Naik v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2025CRL.P/8557/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gambling — game of chance vs game of skill; Sections 79, 80 Karnataka Police Act; Section 112 BNS; quashing of FIR Crime No.35/2025 (Chitradurga Extension PS, 19.03.2025); accused merely Vice President of recreation house; FIR silent on nature of game; Karnataka HC quashes proceedings qua petitioner relying on Sri Manjunath E (Crl.P.8396/2017) and Legends Culture Association (Crl.P.8981/2024); S.482 CrPC / S.528 BNSS petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; the impugned proceedings in F.I.R. in Crime No.35/2025 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM Court, Chitradurga District, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, quashed. ¶118

Mr Abhishek Naik Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶118

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.35/2025 and the proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner under Sections 79, 80 of the Karnataka Police Act and Section 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ought to be quashed, given that the complaint contains no averments as to the nature of the game, i.e., whether it is a 'Game of Chance' or a 'Game of Skill'. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

Offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act are applicable only to a 'Game of Chance' and not to a 'Game of Skill'; a person who participates in or plays a game of skill cannot be said to have committed those offences.

¶107

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner being only the Vice President of M/s. Power Recreation House, wherein the alleged offence is said to have been committed, he could not be incriminated in the said offences.

¶45

Key takeaways

Since the respondents did not ascertain whether the petitioner was playing a 'Game of Skill' or a 'Game of Chance' at the time of the raid, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed the offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, which relate only to games of chance.ratio¶108
On the above grounds, and relying on Sri Manjunath E's case (Crl.P.No.8396/2017) and M/s Legends Culture Association (R)'s case (Crl.P.No.8981/2024), the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserve to be quashed.ratio¶109

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.), Criminal Petition No. 8557 of 2025 under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS, decided 25.06.2025: Allowed. Abhishek Naik, Vice President of M/s. Power Recreation House, sought quashing of FIR No.35/2025 dated 19.03.2025 of Chitradurga Extension Police Station charging him under Sections 79, 80 Karnataka Police Act and Section 112 BNS. Held: (i) the petitioner, being only the Vice President of the premises raided, could not be incriminated; (ii) the complaint contained no averments whether the game played was one of chance or of skill, and the respondents had not ascertained this at the raid; since Sections 79 and 80 KP Act apply only to games of chance and not games of skill, no offence was made out. Relying on Sri Manjunath E v. State of Karnataka (Crl.P.No.8396/2017) and M/s. Legends Culture Association (R) v. State of Karnataka (Crl.P.No.8981/2024), the FIR and impugned proceedings qua the petitioner were quashed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:22341 CRL.P No. 8557 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8557 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. ABHISHEK NAIK, S/O SRI CHANDRAKANTH NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O NO. 287, 3^RD CROSS, C.K. PURA, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA – 577 501

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHITRADURGA EXTENSION POLICE STATION

¶13

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

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

¶15

BANGALORE – 560 001

¶16

CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, HOLALKERE CIRCLE, CHITRADURGA EXTENSION POLICE STATION CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. NAGESHWARAPPA K., HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING NO.35/2025 THE INFORMATION DATED 19.03.2025 REGISTERED WITH THE RESPONDENT NO.1 CHITRADURGA EXTENSION POLICE STATION WHEREIN THE PETITIONERS HEREIN ARE ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 79, 80 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT AND SECTION 112 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, (ANNEXED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:22341 CRL.P No. 8557 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

A1) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AND CJM COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this petition, petitioners seeks the following relief:

¶28

"a. Quash the FIR bearing No.35/2025 the information dated 19.03.2025 registered with the respondent No.1 Chitradurga Extension Police Station wherein the Petitioners herein are arraigned as accused for the alleged offence under Sections 79, 80 of the Karnataka Police Act and Section 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (annexed vide Annexure-A and A1) pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM Court, Chitradurga District.

¶29

b. Pass any order/s as deems fit to this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.”

¶30

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

¶31

A perusal of the material on record will indicate on 19.03.2025, respondent No.1 upon receiving a credible information from respondent No.2 that certain persons were indulging in act of gambling/game of chance, respondent No.1-

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22341 CRL.P No. 8557 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Police registered the FIR in Crime No.35/2025 against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act and Section 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which is assailed in the present petition.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners would reiterate

¶36

the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record submits that the petitioner herein is only the Vice President of M/s. Power Recreation House where the raid was conducted and the alleged offence is said to have committed. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no averments made in the complaint as to the nature of the game and has not stated as to whether such game is a ‘Game of Chance’ or a ‘Game of Skill’ and hence, the petitioner 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:

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:22341 CRL.P No. 8557 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

(ii) M/s. Legends Culture Association (R) and

¶42

another vs. State of Karnataka - Crl.P.No.8981/2024.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is only the Vice President of M/s. Power Recreation House wherein the alleged offence is said to have committed. This being the case, the petitioner herein could not be incriminated in the said offences.

¶46

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

¶47

(i) Sri Manjunath E's case supra:

¶48

"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.

¶49

2. A strong legal point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the entire

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:22341 CRL.P No. 8557 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

proceedings is hit by Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., as the RespondentPolice 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.

¶54

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 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

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:22341 CRL.P No. 8557 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

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.

¶59

ORDER

¶60

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."

¶61

(ii) M/s Legends Culture Association (R)'s case

¶62

supra;

¶63

"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.

¶64

2. Heard Sri Bharath Kumar V., learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Sowmya R.,

¶65

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:22341 CRL.P No. 8557 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶69

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgments rendered by the coordinate benches of this Court in Crl.P.No.100877/2014, disposed on 13.06.2014, which read as follows:

¶70

"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”.

¶71

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;

¶72

“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

¶73

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:22341 CRL.P No. 8557 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

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”.

¶77

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

¶78

"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.

¶79

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

¶80

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:22341 CRL.P No. 8557 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

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.

¶84

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 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

¶85

10 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:22341 CRL.P No. 8557 of 2025

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

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.

¶89

5. Respondent No.5 is served and not represented.

¶90

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.

¶91

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 enquiry

¶92

11 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:22341 CRL.P No. 8557 of 2025

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

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.

¶96

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".

¶97

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.

¶98

4. For the reasons aforementioned, the following:

¶99

ORDER

¶100

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶101

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

¶102

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

¶103

As held by this Court in the aforesaid judgments, in the event of a person participates/plays a 'Game of Skill', he

¶104

12 -

¶105

NC: 2025:KHC:22341 CRL.P No. 8557 of 2025

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

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'.

¶108

In the instant case, the material on record discloses that the respondents have not ascertained as to whether the petitioner was playing a 'Game of Skill' or a 'Game of Chance' at the time of raid and hence, the petitioner 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'.

¶109