Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9445
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1897 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. M.K.MANJUNATH S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT 34/1, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS, NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL, MALLATHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560056.
2. J.C. BASAVARAJU S/O CHIKKA HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT JATTI PALYA, KADABAGERE, BENGALURU-562130.
Digitally signed by S K Lo A A c N R a I J t S E io H E n V E : I T H N T i I g Y J h
3. M S/. O R. K D . E R V A A N R G A A JA PP A,, Court of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT 275, 19TH CROSS, PIPELINE, SUNKADAKATTE, MUTTHURAYASWAMY LAYOUT, VISWANEEDAM, BENGALURU-560091.
4. RAVIKIRAN T.C.S/O LATE CHANNAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT KOTE BEEDI, NEAR SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE, THAVEREKERE, BENGALURU-562130.
5. GIRISH B K S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/ATNO 1383, 2ND 'A' CROSS, D-BLOCK, 5TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560010.
6. JAYANNA S/O THOPAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO 272, THOPAIAH BUILDING, ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, NEAR SOCIETY, VISHWANEEDAM, BENGALURU-560091.
7. M P RAMESH S/O PUTTIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT MATHRUSHREE LAYOUT, RAVUTHANAHALLI, KITHANAHALLI, BENGALURU-562130.
8. RAMESH RAO S/O APPI RAO AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT 11, BYADRAHALLI LAYOUT, HEROHALLI, BENGALURU-560091.
9. LAKSHMANA. P. S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT 82, 6TH CROSS, NISARGA LAYOUT, MALLATHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 056
10. UMESH T. S/O THOPAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT 79, NEAR ACHARYA COLLEGE, ANDRAHALLI, BENGALURU-560091.
11. SHIVANNA S/O KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT S. BYADARAHALLI, MADABAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562120
12. YASHWANTH KUMAR K P S/O PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT 21, 1ST CROSS, KEMPAIAH BLOCK, VENKATRAMPURA, NEAR LAKSHMI TEMPLE, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003.
13. RENUKARADHYA R.S/O RENUKARADHYA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT 27, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, HEROHALLI, VISHWANEEDAM, BENGALURU-560091.
14. KRISHNAIAH S/O CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT 07, 15TH MAIN, BASAVANNA LAYOUT, MAHADESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU-560091
15. GOVINDARAJU S/O KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT 234, NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE, TAVAREKERE, BENGALURU-562130.
16. SATISHA M. N. @ SATISHA S/O NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT MATTANAVILE, SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.
17. RAMALINGEGOWDA D.N.S/O B. NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT 99, DURGAPARAMESHWARI NAGAR, KEREPALYA, HOSAKEREHALLI, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560085
18. VINOD KUMAR T.R.S/O RAVINDRA T.R.AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT THIBBANAHALLI, DEVALAPURA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DIST. - 571 445.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BYDARAHALLI P.S, BENGALURU.REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.
2. DAYANANDA M.J.POLICE INSPECTOR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS SPECIAL ENQUIRY WING, N.T. PETE, BENGALURU-560091.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
JY
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.12166/2024 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.540/2024 REGISTERED BY BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/S 79 AND 80 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF CJM BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED THAT FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.12166/2024 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’).
Heard Sri. Manjunath M.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit 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:
"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”.
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;“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”.
and in criminal revision petition No.100031/2014, disposed on 03.03.2015, it is held as follows:
"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.2.2. 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
