SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU 
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
Mr. Abhishek Naik, S/o. Sri Chandrakanth Nayaka – Petitioner 
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Through Station House Officer, Chitradurga Extension Police Station Represented By State Public Prosecutor and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 8557 of 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
Decided On : 25-06-2025


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Bharath Kumar V., Adv.
For the Respondents: Sri. Nageshwarappa K., HCGP.

Games of skill cannot be prosecuted under laws applicable to games of chance due to lack of evidence establishing the nature of the game involved.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Police Act - Sections 79 and 80 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 112 - Quashing of FIR - The petitioner, as Vice President of a facility where gambling was alleged, was not adequately incriminated as no specifics about the game (chance or skill) were provided - Inapplicability of offences under the Act due to insufficient evidence regarding nature of the game. (Paras 4-10)

(B) Legal Principles - Games characterized as games of skill cannot form the basis for charges under the Karnataka Police Act pertaining to games of chance - Investigations lacking necessary permissions and clarifications regarding game type result in proceedings being quashed - Courts must assess the definition under law regarding games. (Paras 8-10)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought to quash an FIR for alleged gambling offences without specific details on the game played - Claim of involvement only as Vice President - Alleged absence of evidence distinguishing between a game of chance and a game of skill.

Findings of Court:
The investigation into the case was inadequate, lacking clarity on whether a game of skill or chance was involved, thereby necessitating the quashing of proceedings against the petitioner.

Issues: Whether the absence of clarity on game type (skill or chance) and investigatory flaws justified quashing the FIR against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that games of skill are not subject to penal provisions applicable to games of chance, finding the FIR faulty due to lack of evidentiary basis for charges - All proceedings related to the FIR were quashed.

Result: The petition is hereby allowed and the impugned proceedings quashed.

Table of Content
1. factual context of the fir and allegations. (Para 3)
2. arguments of the petitioner questioning the nature of the game. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's view on the petitioner's involvement. (Para 6 , 10 , 11)
4. criteria distinguishing games of skill and chance. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)

ORDER :

(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.)

In this petition, petitioners seeks the following relief :

"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.

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

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

3. 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- 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.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would reiterate 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:

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

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

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

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

6. 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.

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

(i) Sri Manjunath E's case supra:

"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 .

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.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this court reported in Criminal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top