Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deependra Singh Jhala vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21234
MCRC No.26292 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 7th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 26292 of 2025
DEEPENDRA SINGH JHALA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Amit Raj - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishal Singh Panwar - G.A. for respondent/State.
ORDER
1. They are heard and perused the record.
2. This petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 is filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR
registered at Crime No.937 of 2024, Police Station Dewas, District
Dewas (M.P.) under Sections 3 and 4 of Gambling (Madhya
Pradesh) Act, 1976 with consequential proceedings.
3. The exposition of the facts giving rise to the present petition is as
under:-
(a). The Sub-Inspector Rakesh Narwariya of P.S. Kotwali
received secret information on 10.11.2024 that some persons
are gambling with the help of cards at Remon Sports SocietySignature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 8/7/2025
6:59:46 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21234MCRC No.26292 of 2025
2
Club, Dewas near Hotel Madani Darbar. Accordingly, a raid
was planned. The police party conducted raid at Remon
Sports Society Club, Dewas. The playing cards, 148 tokens
and cash Rs.6,350/- were recovered and seized from the 24
persons, who were found playing card on five tables at the
Remon Sports Society Club. Their statements were recorded.
They informed that they had received the token in lieu of cash
amount and they were playing rummy game by betting on the
cards. The P.S. Dewas registered FIR at Crime No.937 of
2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Public Gambling Act, 1867 against 24 accused, who were
found playing card game rummy by betting through tokens.
Ashok Lakhwani, Director of Remon Sports Society Club and
Babla @ Izhar Ali were also apprehended. They informed that
they provided coloured tokens in lieu of cash to the
customers, who were playing card game rummy by betting
through these tokens. On completion of investigation, the
final report was submitted before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dewas. The trial is underway.
4. The impugned FIR is assailed in present petition on following
grounds:-
(i) There is no material to show that the petitioners were
playing any game of chance.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 8/7/2025
6:59:46 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21234
MCRC No.26292 of 2025
3
(ii) As alleged, the petitioners were playing rummy which
is a game of skill and does not constitute any offence under
the Public Gambling Act. Even if the petitioners were
playing a skill-based game with money at stake, no offence
is made out under the Public Gambling Act (the Madhya
Pradesh amendment ) Act,1976.
(iii) The prosecution is mala fide. The offence has been
registered due to enmity between the present and former
members of the Society.
5. On these grounds, it is requested that the impugned FIR be
quashed.
6. The Public Gambling Act, 1867 (with Madhya Pradesh
amendments) defines “Common gaming-house”, Gaming” and
“Instrument of Gaming” as under:-
“Common gaming-house” means any house, walled enclosure, room
or place in which cards, dice, tables or other instruments of gaming are
kept or used for the profit or gain of the person owning, occupying,
using or keeping such house, enclosure, room or place, whether by way
of charge for the use of the instruments of gaming, or of the house,
enclosure, room or place, or otherwise howsoever.
“Gaming” includes wagering or betting but does not include a lottery.
Any transaction by which a person in any capacity whatever employs
another in any capacity whatever or engages for another in any
capacity whatever to wager or bet with another person shall be deemed
to be ‘gaming’.
The collection or soliciting of bets receipt or distribution of winnings or
prizes in money or otherwise in respect of wagering or betting or any
act which is intended to aid or facilitate wagering or betting or suchSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 8/7/2025
6:59:46 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21234MCRC No.26292 of 2025
4
collection, soliciting, receipt or distribution shall also be deemed to be
‘gaming’.
“Instruments of gaming”- The expression “Instruments of gaming”
includes any article used or intended to be used as a subject or means
of gaming, any document used or intended to be used as a register or
record or evidence of any gaming, the proceeds of any gaming and any
winnings or prizes in money or otherwise distributed or intended to be
distributed in respect of any gaming.”
7. Sections 3, 4, 6, 9 and 12 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 (with
Madhya Pradesh amendments) reads as under :-
“3. Penalty for owning or keeping, or having charge of a gaming-
house-Whoever, being the owner or occupier, or having the use, of any
house, walled enclosure, room or place, situate within the limits to
which this Act applies, opens, keeps or uses the same as a common
gaming-house; and
whoever, being the owner or occupier of any such house, walled
enclosure, room or place as aforesaid, knowingly or willfully permits
the same to be opened, occupied, used or kept by any other person as a
common gaming-house; and
whoever has the care or management of, or in any manner assists in
conducting, the business of any house, walled enclosure, room or place
as aforesaid, opened, occupied, used or kept for the purpose aforesaid;
and
whoever advances or furnishes money for the purpose of gaming with
persons frequenting such house, walled enclosure, room or place;
Shall be liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, or to
imprisonment of either description, as defined in the Indian Penal
Code(45 of 1860), for any term not exceeding three months.
In its application to the State of Madhya Pradesh, in Section 3-(i) for
the words house, walled enclosure, room or place, wherever they
occur substitute the words “house, room, tent, enclosure, space,
vehicle, vessel or place”.(C.P. Act 3 of 1927 Section 4.)
(ii) for the last paragraph, substitute the following, namely: “shall be
punished-
(a) for a first offence with imprisonment which may extend to six
months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees;
(b) for a second offence with imprisonment which may extend to one
year and, in the absence of special reasons to the contrary to be
mentioned in the judgment of the Court, shall not be less than fourteenSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 8/7/2025
6:59:46 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21234MCRC No.26292 of 2025
5
days, either with or without fine which may extend to two thousand
rupees; and
(c) for a third or subsequent offence with imprisonment which may
extend to one year and, in the absence of special reasons to the
contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, shall not be less
than four months, together with fine which may extend to two thousand
rupees.”[C.P. Act 3 of 1927, Section 5 and Madhya Pradesh Act 25 of
1950, Section 3 (w.e.f. 3-11-1950)].
4. Penalty for being found in gaming-house-Whoever is found in any
such house, walled enclosure, room or place playing or gaming with
cards, dice, counters, money or other instruments of gaming, or is
found there present for the purpose of gaming, whether playing for any
money, wager, stake or otherwise, shall be liable to a fine not
exceeding one hundred rupees, or to imprisonment of either
description, as defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), for any
term not exceeding one month;
and any person found in any common gaming-house during any
gaming or playing therein shall be presumed, until the contrary be
proved, to have been there for the purpose of gaming.
In its application to the State of M.P. In Section 4-
(i) for the words “house, walled enclosure, room or place”, wherever
they occur, the words “house, room, tent, enclosure, space, vehicle,
vessel or place” shall be substituted.[C.P. Act 3 of 1927, Section 4]
(ii) for the words “one hundred rupees”, the words “five hundred
rupees” and for the words “one month”, the words “four months”
shall be substituted. [Madhya Pradesh Act 25 of 1950, Section 4 (w.e.f.
3-11-1950)].
After Section 4 of the Principal Act, in its application to the State of
Madhya Pradesh, the following section shall be inserted, namely:-
“Section 4-A. Punishment for printing or publishing digits, figures,
signs, symbols or pictures relating to Worli Matkas or other form of
gaming.
(1) Whoever prints or publishes in any manner whatsoever any digits
or figures or signs or symbols or pictures or combination of any two or
more of such digits or figures or signs or symbols or pictures relating
to Worli Matka or any other form of gaming under any heading
whatsoever or by adopting any form or device, or disseminates or
attempts to disseminate or abets dissemination of information relating
to such digits or figures or signs or symbols or pictures or combination
of any two or more of them shall be punishable with imprisonment
which may extend to six months and with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 8/7/2025
6:59:46 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21234
MCRC No.26292 of 2025
6
(2) Where any person is accused of an offence under sub-section (1),
any digits or figures or signs or symbols or pictures or combinations of
any two or more of such digits or figures or signs or symbols or
pictures in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been
committed shall be presumed to relate to Worli Matka gaming or some
other form of gaming unless the contrary is proved by accused.”
6. Finding cards, etc., in suspected houses, to be evidence that such
houses are common gaming-houses-
When any cards, dice, gaming tables, cloths, boards, or other
instruments of gaming are found in any house, walled enclosure, room
or place, entered or searched under the provisions of the last
preceding section, or about the person of any of those who are found
therein, it shall be evidence, until the contrary is made to appear, that
such house, walled enclosure, room or place, is used as a common
gaming-house, and that the persons found therein were there present
for the purpose of gaming, although no play was actually seen by the
Magistrate or police officer, or any of his assistants.
In its application to the State of Madhya Pradesh, in Section 6-for the
words “house, walled enclosure, room or place”, wherever they occur,
the words “house, room, tent, enclosure, space, vehicle, vessel or
place” shall be substituted. [(C.P. Act 3 of 1927, Section 4)].
9. Proof of playing for stakes unnecessary-It shall not be necessary,
in order to convict any person of keeping a common gaming-house, or
of being concerned in the management of any common gaming-house,
to prove that any person found playing at any game was playing for
any money, wager or stake.
12. Act not to apply to certain games- Nothing in the foregoing
provisions of this Act contained shall be held to apply to any game of
mere skill wherever played.”
8. The States of Punjab, Haryana, Manipur, Himachal Pradesh, and
Uttar Pradesh have repealed Section 12 of the Act through
corresponding state amendments. However, no such repeal has been
incorporated by a state amendment in Madhya Pradesh. The
unamended provision contained in Section 12 has an overriding
effect on all preceding provisions. Therefore, any game of mere
skill, wherever played, would not constitute offence under preceding
Section 3 and 4 of the Act.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 8/7/2025
6:59:46 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21234
MCRC No.26292 of 2025
7
9. In the case of R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla & Another Vs. Union
of India & Another reported in 1957 SCC OnLine SC 11, the
Supreme Court, while explaining the distinction between
competitive success on skill and chance, observed as under :-
“23. Applying these principles to the present Act, it will not be questioned
that competitions in which success depends to a substantial extent on skill
and competitions in which it does not so depend, form two distinct and
separate categories. The difference between the two classes of competitions
is as clear-cut as that between commercial and wagering contracts. On the
facts, there might be difficulty in deciding whether a given competition falls
within one category or not; but when its true character is determined, it
must fall either under the one or the other. The distinction between the two
classes of competitions has long been recognised in the legislative practice
of both the United Kingdom and this country, and the courts have, time and
again, pointed out the characteristic features which differentiate them. And
if we are now to ask ourselves the question, would Parliament have enacted
the law in question if it had known that it would fail as regards competitions
involving skill, there can be no doubt, having regard to the history of the
legislation, as to what our answer would be. Nor does the restriction of the
impugned provisions to competitions of a gambling character affect either
the texture or the colour of the Act; nor do the provisions require to be
touched and re-written before they could be applied to them. They will
squarely apply to them on their own terms and in their true spirit, and form
a code complete in themselves with reference to the subject. The conclusion
is therefore inescapable that the impugned provisions, assuming that they
apply by virtue of the definition in s. 2(d) to all kinds of competitions, are
severable in their application to competitions in which success does not
depend to any substantial extent on skill.”
10. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. K. Satyanarayan &
Others reported in 1967 SCC OnLine SC 333, the Supreme Court
explained effect of a pari matria provision of Section 14 of the
Hyderabad Gambling Act as under :-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 8/7/2025
6:59:46 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21234
MCRC No.26292 of 2025
8
“12. We are also not satisfied that the protection of Section 14 is not
available in this case. The game of Rummy is not a game entirely of
chance like the ‘three-card’ game mentioned in the Madras case to
which we were referred. The ‘three card’ game which goes under
different names such as ‘flush’, ‘brag’ etc. is a game of pure chance.
Rummy, on the other hand, requires certain amount of skill because
the fall of the cards has to be memorised and the building up of Rummy
requires considerable skill in holding and discarding cards. We
cannot, therefore, say that the game of Rummy is a game of entire
chance. It is mainly and preponderantly a game of skill. The chance in
Rummy is of the same character as the chance in a deal at a game of
bridge. In fact in all games in which cards are shuffled and dealt out,
there is an element of chance, because the distribution of the cards is
not according to any set pattern but is dependent upon how the cards
find their place in the shuffled pack. From this alone it cannot be said
that Rummy is a game of chance and there is, no skill involved in it. Of
course, if there is evidence of gambling in some other way or that the
owner of the house or the club is making a profit or gain from the
game of Rummy or any other game played for stakes, the offence may
be brought home. In this case, these elements are missing and
therefore we think that the High Court was right in accepting the
reference it did.”
11. While examining pari materia provisions of the Section 49 of
the Police Act and Section 11 of the Gaming Act, in the case of DR.
K.R. Lakshmanan Vs. State of T.N. & Another reported in (1996)
2 SCC 226, the Supreme Court interpreted the expression “game of
mere skill”, as under:-
“19. We may now take-up the second question for consideration.
Section 49 of the Police Act and Section 11 of the Gaming Act
specifically provide that the penal provisions of the two Acts shall not
apply to the games of “mere skill wherever played”. The expression
“game of mere skill” has been interpreted by this Court to mean
“mainly and preponderantly a game of skill”. In State of Andhra
Pradesh vs. K. Satyanarayana & Ors. (1968) 2 SCR 387, the question
before this Court was whether the game of Rummy was a game of
mere skill or a game of chance. The said question was to be answered
on the interpretation of Section 14 of the Hyderabad Gambling Act (2
of 1305-F) which was pari materia to Section 49 of the Police Act andSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 8/7/2025
6:59:46 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21234MCRC No.26292 of 2025
9
Section 11 of the Gaming Act. This Court referred to the proceedings
before the courts below in the following words:
“The learned Magistrate who tried the case was of the opinion that
the offence was proved, because of the presumption since it was not
successfully repelled on behalf of the present respondents. In the
order making the reference the learned Sessions Judge made two
points:
He first referred to s.14 of the Act which provides that nothing done
under the Act shall apply to any game of mere skill wherever played
and he was of opinion on the authority of two cases decided by the
Madras High Court and one of the Andhra High Court that the game
of Rummy was a game of skill and therefore the Act did not apply to
the case.”
This Court held the game of Rummy to be a game of mere skill on the
following reasoning:
“We are also not satisfied that the protection of s.14 is not available
in this case. The game of Rummy is not a game entirely of chance like
the `three- card’ game mentioned in the Madras case to which we
were referred. The `three card’ game which goes under different
names such as `flush’, `brag’ etc. is a game of pure chance. Rummy,
on the other hand requires certain amount of skill because the fall of
the cards has to be memorised and the building up of Rummy requires
considerable skill in holding and discarding cards. We cannot,
therefore, say that the game of Rummy is a game of entire chance. It
is mainly and preponderantly a game of skill. The chance in Rummy is
of the same character as the chance in a deal at a game of bridge. In
fact in all games in which cards are shuffled and dealt out, there is an
element of chance, because the distribution of the cards is not
according to any set pattern but is dependent upon how the cards find
their place in the shuffled pack. From this alone it cannot be said that
Rummy is a game of chance and there is no skill involved in it.”
20. The judgments of this Court in the two Chamarbaugwala cases
and in the Satyanarayana case clearly lay-down that (i) the
competitions where success depends on substantial degree of skill are
not `gambling’ and (ii) despite there being an element of chance if a
game is preponderantly a game of skill it would nevertheless be a
game of “mere skill”. We, therefore, hold that the expression “mere
skill” would mean substantial degree or preponderance of skill.”
12. Thus, the Supreme Court held that the games involving
considerable skill are games of “mere skill”. Consequently, the
games predominantly based on skill are not gambling, even if they
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 8/7/2025
6:59:46 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21234
MCRC No.26292 of 2025
10
contain some element of chance. Therefore, the game of “Rummy”
which involves strategic elements, is not regarded as gambling under
the prevailing legal statutes.
13. The material on case diary does not reveal the manner in which
the petitioners/ accused were involved in the betting or gaming
through cards. According to the statements of accused recorded
under section 27 of the Evidence Act, they were playing card game
“Rummy”. The game of “Rummy” being, mainly and
preponderantly, a game of skill would not constitute “gaming” in
view of the provision contained in the section 12 of the Act, 1867.
Consequently, the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Public Gambling Act, 1867 is not made out against the petitioners.
14. In view of the aforestated discussion, further prosecution of the
petitioners would be an abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, the
inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 are
invoked for ends of justice and the FIR registered at Crime
No.937/2024, P.S. Dewas Distt. Dewas is quashed with all
consequential proceedings with reference to the present petitioners
‘only’. The petitioners stand discharged.
15. However, before parting with the order, it is considered
appropriate to forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary,
Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Govt. of M.P. for
intimation and deliberations, at appropriate forum, on the effect of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 8/7/2025
6:59:46 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21234
MCRC No.26292 of 2025
11
Section 12 of Public Gambling Act, 1867 as it exists today and its
social ramification.
16. With the aforesaid, present petition stands allowed and disposed
of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Pankaj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 8/7/2025
6:59:46 PM