MR. RAHUL v. MR.CHITRAG SANDARYA & Ors.

2. MR.CHITRAG SANDARYA S/O ANIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O NO. 14/3, 4TH CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

3. MR. PRAVEENKUMAR S/O BHAGAVAN CHAND, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O NO 6, PVR ROAD, JAALIMOHALLA, COTONPETE BENGALURU - 560 053.

4. PANKAJ S JAIN S/O SOBHAG MAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O 3, 3RD CROSS, AKKIPETE, BENGALURU - 560 053. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26264 CRL.P No. 2519 of 2026 HC-KAR

5. SURENDRA ANAND S/O ASHOK ANAND AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O 207,SMR HERITAGE, NEW TIPPASANDRA, JEEVANBHIMANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 075.

6. VIMAL J GANDHI S/O JUGRAJ JAIN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O NO-35, ECR ROAD, V.V. PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 004.

7. B.K. LOKESH S/O. KESHAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O KESHAVIAH R/O NO-113, 2ND MAIN, 6TH CROSS CHAMRAJPETE, BENGALURU - 560 018.

8. SALMAN MUNAF DORJEWALA S/O MUNAF SULAIMAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O NO.1335, 1ST MAIN ROAD, NEAR BOMBAY DYING, BEHIND LG SHOWROOM, YASHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU - 560 022

9. GOWTHAM PATEL S/O LATE ASHWINI PATEL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26264 CRL.P No. 2519 of 2026 HC-KAR R/O NO.4, 5TH CROSS, DK STREET, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001.

10. RIYAZ RAFIQ PATEL S/O HAZI RAFIQ PATEL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O NO.12/1, 8TH CROSS GANGONDANAHALLI NAYANDANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 039.

11. VISHWANATH S/O LATE BC BASANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O 148/10, 6TH CROSS, AZAD NAGARA, CHAMARAJPETE BENGALURU - 560 018.

12. CHANDAN NAGARAJU S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O 25/11, 1ST CROSS, OBALAPPA GARDEN, KR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 070.

13. RVN RAMAKRISHNA RAJU S/O LATE BUCHIRAJU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O NO.50, VENKATAREDDY LAYOUT, 100 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 034. (BY SRI. TRISHUL M.R., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26264 CRL.P No. 2519 of 2026 HC-KAR AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CCB SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM, BENGALURU - 560 027. (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. QUASH THE FIR BEARING NO.265/2025 AND ALONG WITH THE INFORMATION DATED 05.09.2025 WHICH IS RENUMBERED AS C.C.NO.26816/2025 REGISTERED WITH THE ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION WHEREIN THE PETITIONER HEREIN ARE ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S/ 79 AND 80 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC (TAFFIC COURT I ), BENGALURU (ANNEXURED VIDE ANNEXURE A AND ANNEXURE B1) AND ETC. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26264 CRL.P No. 2519 of 2026 HC-KAR THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.26816/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

2. Heard Sri. Thrishul M.R., learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court Crl.P.No.100877/2014, disposed on 13.06.2014, which read as follows: "5. On analysing the above said provision of law, this Court has rendered a decision reported in case of 1971(2) Mys. Chickarangappa & Others Vs. State of Mysore and another decision reported in 1977 (1) K.L.J. 274 in the case of Eranna Vs. State of Karnataka, which decisions declare that, “playing ‘Andar Bahar’ is a L.J. 187 - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:26264 CRL.P No. 2519 of 2026 HC-KAR 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”.

6. In the ruling reported in 1977 (1) K.L.J. 274 (supra), this Court has categorically held that, game of ‘Andar Bahar’ is not a game of chance. The facts are also little bit relevant as quoted in the said case. At paragraph 7 of the said judgment, it is stated that; “In this view of the matter, the essential ingredient of the offence was not proved. It could not be established that the petitioner – accused were playing a game of chance and one does not know how the game ‘Andar Bahar’ is actually played with the assistance of cards. Even if any betting was resorted to and even if any pledge of moveables was made in support of that betting, that by itself did not convert a game of a skill into a game of chance. At any it was not categorically proved that ‘Andar Bahar’ is a game of chance and that these accused were playing that game. They were not covered under the definition of gaming in a common house. Since the institution where the accused were found playing the game with cards is a club, it is not unusual that cards are played in a club, and it may even be that some betting was also being done. These facts by themselves never proved that a game of chance was being played or that no skill was involved in that game so that it could be considered to be a mere game of chance. It is manifest that a game of skill would not be held to be gambling for the purpose of the Act. In this view of the matter, no offence under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 was - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:26264 CRL.P No. 2519 of 2026 HC-KAR made out against the petitioners. Hence the conviction of sentence was set aside”. in criminal revision petition No.100031/2014, disposed on 03.03.2015, it is held as follows: "This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. by the State, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate in releasing the interim custody of the cash amount in favour of accused No.2/ respondent No.2.

2. Succinctly stated, the P.S.I. of Honnavar Police Station charge sheeted the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 87 of K.P. Act. The accused were on bail. During the raid the Investigating Officer had seized cash of Rs.34,468/- , which is alleged to be the gaming money. Respondent No.2 moved an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of the said amount. The application was contested by the prosecution. The application and released the interim custody of cash amount in favour of the applicant / respondent No.2 on executing an indemnity bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum. However, care was taken by the court below by directing accused No.1 to assist the C.M.O. of the Court to take the photographs of the currency notes at his cost. court below allowed playing

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner – State submits that the trial Court has lost sight of the fact that the amount was seized while the accused were indulged Bahar. In the event prosecution successfully proves its case, said money is liable to be confiscated to the State Government. The court had acted on the fabricated documents produced by the accused No.2 projecting that the money belong to Srikumar Roadlines, under whom he was employed. Though the prosecution had disputed the said document Andar - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:26264 CRL.P No. 2519 of 2026 HC-KAR the veracity of without probing about document, the trial Court has hurriedly released the interim custody of the cash amount. In fact the said cash amount is required to be marked in evidence during the trial. The currency notes are not perishable in nature and there was no dire necessity to release the interim custody of the cash amount in favour of second applicant. The accused No.5 has pleaded guilty and was imposed fine, that strengthens the case of prosecution. In the judgment of this Court reported in 1993 CRL.L.J. 3109 in the case of T. Narayanaswamy vs. State and Others, it has been held that release of money seized for the interim custody is bad in law. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. In reply, Sri Anoop G. Deshpande, learned counsel for R1 to R4 and R6 to R7 submits that the impugned order being in the nature of interlocutory order is not amenable to the revision jurisdiction. Hence, the very petition itself is not maintainable. In fact, the money seized was not the gaming money, but it belongs to his employer Srikumar Roadlines and the court below having satisfied about his contention was pleased to release the interim custody to his possession. However, the interest of State is protected by directing him to execute the indemnity bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum. Even the interest of the prosecution about the identification of the currency notes is also taken care by directing him to assist the C.M.O. of the Court at his cost in taking photographs of the currency notes.

5. Respondent No.5 is served and not represented.

6. As regards the first contention about the maintainability of the revision petition, by a catena of judicial pronouncements of this Court and other High Courts, it is held that the release of interim custody of the seized property is the nature of adjudication of the rights of the parties in reference property. The said order is amenable for revision - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:26264 CRL.P No. 2519 of 2026 HC-KAR jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Hence, there is no merit in the contention that this petition is not maintainable.

7. As regards the merit of the impugned order is concerned, the court below being convinced with a certificate produced by the second applicant issued by his employer Srikumar Roadlines and also daily enquiry report dated 14.11.2012 has inferred that he is an employee of the said Roadlines. Keeping open the question of the ownership of the seized property / cash amount in question the court below has ordered interim custody by photographs of currency notes and also by calling upon the applicant to execute the indemnity bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum. taking

8. Under the circumstances, I hold that the impugned has not prejudiced the case of the State and it is not illegal. The grounds urged by the State lacks merits interference of this Court. Accordingly, petition is rejected". In the light of the afore-extracted judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and in the facts obtaining in the case at hand, which covers the issue on all its fours, I deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings, qua the petitioners.

4. For the reasons aforementioned, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:26264 CRL.P No. 2519 of 2026 HC-KAR (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.26816/2025 pending before the Court of the JMFC (Traffic Court-1), Bengaluru, stand quashed, qua the petitioners. I.A.No.1/2026 is disposed, as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29