Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16372
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J
Pipreye Vishal Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11182 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri N. Praveen
For the Respondents: Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla
Prosecution must establish that premises constitute a common gaming house for liability under the Gaming Act.
Headnote:(A) Telangana State Gaming Act, 1974 - Sections 3 and 4 - Criminal Petition seeking to quash proceedings under the Gaming Act. The essence of the matter revolves around the nature of the premises used for gambling and whether it constitutes a 'common gaming house.' The court found insufficient evidence to classify the venue under the act. (Paras 11, 12)
(B) Criminal liability - The prosecution failed to establish that the premises where gaming occurred was a common gaming house under the Gaming Act’s definitions. Therefore, charges against the petitioner cannot stand as per the conditions established in relevant case law. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of gambling, argued that the location of the game was not a common gaming house under the Telangana Gaming Act and that the police acted without proper inquiry before registration.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the seizure did not implicate the petitioner and the venue did not meet the criteria for a common gaming house as defined by law.
Issues: The key issue was whether the premises qualifies as a common gaming house under the act, and if evidence was sufficient to support the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a location to be deemed a common gaming house, there must be evidence indicating it was used as such for profit, which the prosecution failed to provide.
Result: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual context surrounding charges and initial police actions. (Para 1 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. criminal actions initiated based on insufficient grounds. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments regarding the legality of proceedings based on premises definition. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. court observations informing the definition of common gaming house. (Para 9) |
THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11182 of 2025 ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1418 of 2021 on the file of the learned XII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-I Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Telangana State Gaming Act, 1974 .
2. Heard Sri N. Praveen, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1-State. Perused the record. 3. The brief facts, as culled out from the charge sheet, are that on 23.07.2020, respondent No.2 received information about gambling, which was in progress at Anmul Catering Godown at Kattedan, and proceeded to the scene and found that the accused were playing three cards game by betting money. Therefore, the petitioner and other accused were taken into custody and also seized net cash of Rs.1,32,450/- and 52 playing cards from the possession of the accused at the instance of Panchas. Later, the Police have registered a case against the petitioner and other accused for the aforesaid offence and filed charge sheet against them.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner; the police have erred in registering a case in FIR No.686 of 2020 against the petitioner and consequently filed charge sheet, which is illegal and arbitrary; the Police have registered the case mechanically without conducting proper enquiry; the petitioner is having good name and reputation in the society and without considering the said fact, the Police have mechanically registered the case without following any procedure laid down under the Telangana State Gaming Act and the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the petitioner was involved in illegal gambling. It is further contended that the game of playing cards is not an offence per-se, it is an offence when it is carried on in a public place or in a common gaming house as defined under the Gaming Act and until and unless the prosecution proves that there was profit or gain by the owner or occupier of the place, the same would not come under the definition of common gaming house. It is also contended that mere playing of cards with stakes will not make the club a common gaming house as envisaged under the Gaming Act and the charge sheet do not disclose whether the premises is a gaming house or not as per Section 2(i) of the T.S. Gaming Act and if the same is not a gaming house, then the petitioner cannot be held liable under Section 3 of Telangana Gaming Act. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. In order to support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in Rudra Srinivas, Karimnagar v. The State of Telangana , [Crl.P.No.12743 of 2016 dated 21.09.2022] and Tholem Narsimha Rao, Kothegudem v. Public Prosecutor , [Crl.P.No.6987 of 2016 dated 26.09.2022]
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the matter has to be decided after conducting trial by the Court below and the proceedings cannot be quashed at this juncture. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
7. Basing on the search and seizure report, a crime was registered against the petitioner and other accused vide FIR No.686 of 2020.
8. On perusal of seizure report, it is evident that the Police seized a
