The High Court · 2025

High Court of

2. Miss M. Swetha, Sub-lnspector of Police, Sultan Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT No. 1 Bazar Police Station, ...RESPONDENT No. 2/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Proceedings in Charge Sheet vide C.C.No 7658 of 2024 on the file of the ll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, for the alleged offences U/Sec.3, 4 and 5 of T.S Gaming Act l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further Proceedings in Charge Sheet vide C.C.No 7658 of 2024 on the file of the II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, for the alleged offences U/Sec.3, 4 and 5 of T.S Gaming Act pending disposal of the main petition \ CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11969 OF 2025 Between: Mandagandi Bhanu Prasad @ Bhanu, S/o. M, Chandrashekar Prasad, Aged about 29 years, Occ Driver, R/o H. No. 16- 11- 71'.tlA, Gaddiannaram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. .PETITIONER/A7 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, For the State of Telangana. .. RESPONDENT No. 1

2. Miss M. Swetha, Sub- lnspector of Police, Hyderabad Sultan llazar Police Station ...RESPONDENT No. ZDEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to quash the Proceedings in Charge Sheet vide, C. C. No 7658 of 2024 on the file of the ll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, for the alleged offences U/Sec. 3, 4 and 5 of T. 13 Gaming Act l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that rn the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further Proceedings in Charge, {iheet vide C. C. No 7658 of 2024 on the file of the ll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, for the alleged offences U/Sec.3,4 and 5 cf T. S Gaming Act pending disposal of the main petition. These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitron and upon hearing the aretuments of Sri B. Venkataram Naidu representing Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. Shalini Saxena, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf o'the Respondent No. 1 and of none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITI ON Nos.'|1986 &'l 1969 0F 2025 COMMON ORDER: These Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.765g of 2024 on the file of the learned Il Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, registered for the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of T.S Gaming Act l

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. I l

4. Thg Jearned Assistant public prosecutor has submitted that the investigation reveared that the petitioner has facilitated the I I I I I 2 rnnocent 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 materiar at the scene of offence shows the prima_facie involvement of the petitioner herein Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record. b The petitioner counsel contends that the ,alleged acts do not fall under the provisions of Sections 3, 4, {; 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 2O24.ln the said case the petitioners were alleged to have been playing cerrC games. lt 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 2r.1) of the Gaming Act and therefore, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the r\ct do not get attracted. Hence, the proceedings were quashed against the petitioners. But in the present case the allegations refer to online cricket betting. ) I I I I I i I I l { i i iI I I I i t I I I a l I I 'I 3 7 ThedefinitionofSection2(1)oftheGamingActisextracted for the sake of reference' on an( transaction Section2 1 or scheme of wageing or betting in which the receiPt or distibution of winnings of Prozes' tn money or otherwise, is made to dePend on chance' anY room, tent, enclo sure, vehicle, vessel, (cYber house, space) or anY Place whatsoever in which the gamtng takes P lae or in which the horses or other instruments of gaming, are keP t or used for such gamtng' Thus, the alleged facts of the Petitioners do fall under 2('t) of the Act and hence, the from those in case differ nd 10830 of 2024, therefore' the the definition of Section facts of the Present CrlP.Nos.5169 of 2023 a same is not aPPlicable' I I I I B. The recitals of the complaint filed by the S'l of Police' points out that certain amount of cash' cell phones' laptops etc" were It is alleged that the petitioner is seized at the scene of offence' that accused No.6 was a sub conducting cricket betting and 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'S' 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 eleckonic evidence fall for consideration during the course of trial' ln the result, these Criminal Petitions are disposed of 9. dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial \ 4 Court, unless their prer court during ,nu "orrf"'"e represented by their counsel on every date of h,raring. is specifically required by the trial ;e of trial, provided that they shall be Miscellaneous closed. applications pending, if a ,, any, shall stand SD/- A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The ll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, Sultan Bazar Police Station, llyderabad City 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the s;tate of Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VH/PSt, Sr HIGH COURT DATED: 2410912025 \ COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.11986 & 11969 of 2025 fi9 S r.:i ).-- \- .\ s </ J .)') 1 i N['l 2$25 ( I ?- ..1 ( * DISPOSING OF BOTH CRIMINAL PETITIONS ^.ofl"b '6 k*"' I I i I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I : i i l r I i t