Dismissed

Valluri Rami Reddy, Kadapa District and 10 Others v. the Sho, Orddatyr III Town Ps., Kadapa Dist, Rep. by Pp.,Hyd

Telangana HC30 Aug 2018CRLP/8665/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashal of proceedings for offences under the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act. The Court held that factual disputes regarding the nature of the game and lack of mediators must be resolved during trial.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications were dismissed.

Valluri Rami Reddy, Kadapa District and 10 Others Vs the… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8665 of 2011

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.271 of 2011 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Proddatur, registered for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, against the petitioners.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners raised two grounds for quash. One is that as per charge sheet, no mediators were obtained by the prosecution. The other is that game of rummy is a game of skill. In support of the contention that game of rummy is a game of skill and one cannot be prosecuted for playing it, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in D. Krishna Kumar and another V. State of A.P., rep. by its Inspector of Police, Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad¹ , wherein it was held that game of rummy is a game of skill and therefore, the question whether the management of the club or the club is making profits, and what is the rate of profit that is being made from out of the game of rummy, with 13 cards/syndicate, may not be of any relevance. It was further held that even if the petitioners, who are running the club that was raided by the police, were making profits by allowing persons to use the premises for playing the game of rummy with 13 cards/syndicate, they cannot be said to be running a ‘common gaming house’ as

¶7

1 2002(5) ALT 806

¶8

TR,J Crl.P. No.8665 of 2011

¶9

¶10

defined in Section 2(1) of the Act, because Section 3 of the Act, in view of Section 15 of the Act, does not apply to a place where rummy is being played.

¶11

In the present case, on mere contention of petitioners that the prosecution has not obtained mediators, the further proceedings cannot be quashed and the circumstances under which the mediators could not be obtained need to be decided during trial. As regards the game that was being played, the complainant nowhere terms the game as rummy. He simply refers the game as being played with betting. Whether the game involved only skill, only of chance has to be decided only on relevant evidence. Hence, this Court opines that the contentions raised by the petitioners are all factual aspects which can be decided only during trial and therefore, this case is considered as not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶12

Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand dismissed.

¶13

___________ T. RAJANI, J 30^th August, 2018. sj

Valluri Rami Reddy, Kadapa District and 10 Others v. the Sho, Orddatyr III Town Ps., Kadapa Dist, Rep. by Pp.,Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valluri Rami Reddy, Kadapa District and 10 Others v. the Sho, Orddatyr III Town Ps., Kadapa Dist, Rep. by Pp.,Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devalanka Sesha Rao , Seshagiri Rao Vs the State of Ap., Rep by Its P.P and Anothers

Tellamekala Srinivasa Rao and 2 Others Vs the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P

Dr.Rajashekar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and Another Vs the State of Ap.,Rep. by Pp. High Court, Hyderabad and 2 Othrs

Sri K.Manikya Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Raja Kumari and 2 Others Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and Another

K. Rama Mohan Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh