THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.11986 & 11969 OF 2025

COMMON ORDER:

These Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7658 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, registered for the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of T.S Gaming Act.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri B. Venkatram Naidu learned counsel representing Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the petitioner herein is accused No.7 and is innocent and has not committed any Cricket betting as alleged by the de-facto complainant and that he has not lured anyone to enter into cricket betting. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the investigation revealed that the petitioner has facilitated the innocent people with laptops and mobiles to engage in online cricket betting and were collecting money from the said people. She further submitted that the seizure of the material at the scene of offence shows the prima-facie involvement of the petitioner herein.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The petitioner counsel contends that the alleged acts do not fall under the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5 of Gaming Act, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners need to be quashed. He further relied upon the orders of this Court in CrlP.No.5163 of 2023 and 10803 of 2024. In the said case the petitioners were alleged to have been playing card games. It was alleged that they were playing three card games by betting, it was held that the premises where the petitioners were caught hold of, was not gaming house as defined under Section 2(1) of the Gaming Act and therefore, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act do not get attracted. Hence, the proceedings were quashed against the petitioners. But in the present case the allegations refer to online cricket betting.

7. The definition of Section 2(1) of the Gaming Act is extracted for the sake of reference.

Section 2(1) (f):-

On any transaction or scheme of wagering or betting in which the receipt or distribution of winnings of prozes, in money or otherwise, is made to depend on chance, any house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel, (cyber space) or any place whatsoever in which the gaming takes plae or in which the horses or other instruments of gaming, are kept or used for such gaming.

Thus, the alleged facts of the petitioners do fall under the definition of Section 2(1) of the Act and hence, the facts of the present case differ from those in CrlP.Nos.5169 of 2023 and 10830 of 2024, therefore, the same is not applicable.

8. The recitals of the complaint filed by the S.I of Police, points out that certain amount of cash, cell phones, laptops etc., were seized at the scene of offence. It is alleged that the petitioner is conducting cricket betting and that accused No.6 was a sub organizer of cricket betting through online apps and that he was conducting this cricket betting along with his Associates i.e., the petitioner herein and accused No.5. Thus, the allegations do point out the offence of betting by using cyber space, against the petitioner herein. The veracity of the witnesses, the strength of electronic evidence fall for consideration during the course of trial.

9. In the result, these Criminal Petitions are disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial Court, unless their presence is specifically required by the trial Court during the course of trial, provided that they shall be represented by their counsel on every date of hearing.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________________

JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date: 24.09.2025 ds