Allowed¶84

Sri Nasir v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2026CRL.P/14345/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC 2026:KHC:3367; High Court of Karnataka; Justice M.Nagaprasanna; 21-01-2026; CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 528 BNSS; Karnataka Police Act 1963 Sections 79 and 80; C.C.No.465/2024; Crime No.551/2023; Hiriyur Rural Police Station; suo moto complaint; Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court Hiriyur; andar bahar; common gaming house; Crl.P.No.100265/2025 c/w Crl.P.No.101043/2024 (disposed 27.06.2025); proceedings quashed qua petitioner; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.465/2024 (Crime No.551/2023) pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hiriyur, Chitradurga District, qua the petitioner. ¶84

Sri Nasir Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:3367 CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14345 OF 2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI NASIR S/O MAHAMMEDSAB, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O VANIVILASAPURA VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK - 577 511 CHITRADURGA KARNATAKA

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY HIRIYUR RURAL POLICE STATION, HIRIYUR – 577 511 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶15

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, CUBBON PARK, BENGALURU – 560 001

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, LEARNED HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.465/2024 (CR.NO.551/2023) REGISTERED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 79 AND 80 OF K.P. ACT, 1963, PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT THE HIRIYUR RURAL POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, INITIATED ON SUO MOTO COMPLAINT OF THE RESPONDENT.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:3367 CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned counsel Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah, appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the

¶28

following prayer:

¶29

"a. Quash the entire proceedings in CC No.465/2024 (Crime No.551/2023), registered, for the alleged offences U/Sec 79 & 80 of the KP Act, 1963, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Hiriyur, Chitradurga District registered by the Respondent, the Hiriyur Rural Police Station, Chitradurga District, initiated on Suo Moto complaint of the Respondent.

¶30

b) Pass any other order or orders, which this Hon'ble Court deems it just and necessary in facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice and equity. "

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:3367 CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Crl.P.No.100265/2025 c/w Crl.P.No.101043/2024 disposed on

¶36

27.06.2025, wherein it has held as follows:

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

Criminal Petition No.100265 of 2025 is filed by accused Nos.2 to 5, 7, 9 to 36 and 38 to 71 and Criminal Petition No.101043 of 2024 is filed by accused Nos.1, 6, 8, 37 and 72. Both these petitions are arising out of same crime number and hence, they are taken up together and disposed off.

¶39

These criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.1290 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class-III Court, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short, 'Act').

¶40

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, Sri B.R. Gaddekar, Police Inspector, CEN Crime Police, Belagavi, filed a complaint alleging that on 05.11.2023 at about 01.50 p.m., when he was in Police Station, he received credible information that in Sanskruti Farm First Floor in Bailhongal, one Mahantesh Turmuri, R/O. Bailhongal and 8 to 10 people are playing andar bahar cards. Therefore, he lodged N.C. No.22 of 2023 under Section 87 of the Act and after securing permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate, he conducted raid on the said persons, seized six set of playing cards, mobiles, and cash of Rs.2,20,290/- and arrested them. Hence, the Station House Officer registered a case in Crime No.93 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Act. In turn, the Investigating Officer conducted investigation and filed chargesheet against seventy-two persons.

¶41

Taking exception to the same, the petitioners have preferred these petitions.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the offences alleged against the petitioners are completely false. The complaint being that the petitioners were engaged in gambling is incorrect and he submits that the reference to 'common gaming

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:3367 CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

house' has to be considered in respect of Section 2(3) of the Act. Hence, the house as described in the complaint would not qualify for the said definition. He further contended that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K.N. SURESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2012 KAR 1443 held that andar bahar is not a game of skill and is mere a game of chance. Therefore, the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Act are not attracted. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings.

¶47

Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State has contended that when the petitioners were playing andar bahar, a huge amount was seized from them, which indicates that they were engaged in gambling and therefore, the proceedings ought not to be quashed. She relies upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Criminal Petition No.102114 of 2019 disposed on 24-2-2020.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Petition No.100877 of 2014, disposed on 13.06.2014, which read as follows:

¶49

"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”.

¶50

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;

¶51

“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

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:3367 CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

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”.

¶56

and in Criminal Revision Petition No.100031 of 2014, disposed on 03.03.2015, it is held as follows:

¶57

"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.

¶58

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

¶59

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:3367 CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

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.

¶63

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.

¶64

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

¶65

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:3367 CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

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.

¶69

Respondent No.5 is served and not represented.

¶70

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.

¶71

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 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. 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".

¶72

In the light of the afore-extracted judgments rendered by the Coordinate Benches of this Court and in the facts obtaining in the case

¶73

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:3367 CRL.P No. 14345 of 2024

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

at hand, which covers the issue on all its fours, I deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings, qua the petitioners.

¶77

For the reasons aforementioned, the Court proceeds to pass the following

¶78

O R D E R

¶79

i. Criminal petitions are allowed.

¶80

ii. ii. The proceedings in Criminal Case No.1290 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-III, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, qua the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5, 7, 9 to 36 and 38 to 71 in Criminal Petition No.100265 of 2025, and the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 6, 8, 37 and 72 in Criminal Petition No.101043 of 2024, stand quashed.

¶81

iii. Pending IA’s if any, in both the petitions, stand disposed off.

¶82

In the light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following:

¶83

ORDER

¶84

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶85

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.465/2024 pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hiriyur, Chitradurga District, stand quashed, qua the petitioner.

¶86

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶87

TS,List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Sri Nasir v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nasir 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

M/S Nitesh Housing Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Yes Bank Ltd.

Sri H C Prakash Vs Sri M Boraiah

BJP4 Karnataka (Twitter Acc) Vs State of Karnataka

Chinnappaiayan Vs State by

Sathish Kumar M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. S Kushal Raj Vs Smt Shwetharani S B