[2025:RJ-JP:48914]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6723/2025 Ashok Kumar Kailash @ Ashok Khandelwal, R/o Flat No. 601, SDC Ashok Millborn, D-38, Subhash Marg, Ahinsa Circle, C-

Scheme, Jaipur- 302001.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshal Tholia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

02/12/2025

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing of the impugned FIR No.293/2025 registered with Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur City (South) for the offences under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 (for short “the Ordinance of 1949”).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises in question is not a public place rather, it is a leased out property, which was used for the purpose of playing a game of skill, i.e., Poker. Learned counsel submits that infact no money was used in this game and this fact is clear from the CCTV footage from the CCTV cameras affixed in the premises. But inspite of the above, the impugned FIR has been registered against the petitioner under Section 13 of the Ordinance of 1949. Learned counsel submits that prior to searching the premises, the procedure contained under Section 5 of the Ordinance of 1949 was also not followed. Hence, under these circumstances, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

3. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon a lease executed by the lessor in favour of the lessee.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that infact the premises in question, where the search was conducted is a cafe/restaurant and it was found that some persons were playing a poker for which money was used and a sum of Rs.5,57,500/- was recovered from the spot. Learned counsel submits that on the basis of the aforesaid, the impugned FIR under Section 13 of the Ordinance of 1949 was registered and the same is a cognizable offence. Therefore, the matter has been investigated by the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel submits that contents of the impugned FIR reveals commission of cognizable offence and the allegations made therein are required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

6. Whether the petitioner is running a restaurant/cafe in the premises or not, whether any money was recovered from the premises or not, whether money was floated by the players or not & whether the premises in question was public place or not? All these are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudged by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section

528 BNSS. Certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer.

7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate representation along-with documents in support thereof before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same in accordance with law.

8. In case, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, then he shall ensure the compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 35 of the BNSS.

9. With the aforesaid observations, the misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/30