Investigation into Non-Cognizable Offences Without Proper Magisterial Sanction Under S.155(2) CrPC Vitiates Proceedings: Karnataka High Court - 2025-07-22

Court Cases & Legal News.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Gambling Case, Citing Procedural Lapses and 'Andar Bahar' as a Game of Skill

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against seven individuals accused of gambling, reinforcing two critical legal principles: the mandatory requirement for police to obtain proper judicial permission before investigating non-cognizable offences and the classification of the card game 'Andar Bahar' as a game of skill, not chance.

Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar, presiding over the case of Mukesh Jain & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka , allowed the writ petition, thereby nullifying the proceedings under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

---

Background of the Case

The case originated from a police complaint dated January 8, 2024, which led to a raid and the seizure of Rs. 85,39,500. Seven individuals, including Mukesh Jain, were subsequently charged under the Karnataka Police Act for alleged gambling activities. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings (C.C.No.4341 of 2024) and demanding the return of the seized cash.

---

Core Arguments and Legal Precedents

The petitioners' counsel, Sri. Amit Mandgi, presented two primary arguments for quashing the case:

1. Violation of Mandatory Procedure: The investigation was initiated without prior approval from a Magistrate as required under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act are non-cognizable, meaning police cannot investigate them without a specific, reasoned order from a Magistrate.
2. Nature of the Game: The petitioners contended they were playing 'Andar Bahar,' which has been previously recognized by the courts as a "game of skill" rather than a "game of chance," placing it outside the purview of the anti-gambling provisions of the Act.

To substantiate the procedural flaw, the court extensively cited its own landmark judgments.

• On Magisterial Sanction: The court relied heavily on the guidelines established in Vageppa Gurulinga Jangaligi Vs. State of Karnataka , which explicitly forbids Magistrates from merely endorsing "permitted" on a police requisition. The judgment mandates a judicious application of mind and a formal, reasoned order recorded on a separate order sheet.

• Application of Mind vs. Application of Ink: The court also referred to Sri. Krishnappa M.T. and another Vs. State of Karnataka , where it was caustically remarked, "It is the application of mind that is necessary in law and not application of ink." This precedent underscores that a lengthy order devoid of reasoning does not meet the legal standard for granting permission to investigate.

---

Pivotal Excerpts from Precedents

The court highlighted the clear directives from the Vageppa case, which stated:

"The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement as ‘permitted ’ on the police requisition itself. Such an endorsement is not an order in the eyes of law and as mandated under Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C."

Regarding the nature of 'Andar Bahar,' the court cited the decision in M/s Legends Culture Association (R) , which in turn relied on older rulings declaring 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."

---

Court's Final Decision and Implications

Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar concluded that the proceedings against the petitioners were unsustainable on both grounds. The police had failed to adhere to the mandatory procedure under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., and the activity in question—playing 'Andar Bahar'—did not constitute a gambling offence under the relevant act.

In its final order, the court held:

"...impugned proceedings falling foul of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments since the investigation was conducted without prior permission of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) and so also the alleged game played by the petitioners being a ‘Game of Skill’ and not a ‘Game of Chance’, I am of the view that impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed."

The court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal case (C.C.No.4341/2024). Furthermore, it granted liberty to the petitioners to file a separate application before the trial court for the release of the seized cash amount of Rs. 85,39,500, directing the lower court to consider it expeditiously and in accordance with the law.