Karnataka High Court
Shri. Anilkumar Rudrappa Reddi vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 August, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9985
CRL.P No. 103057 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 103022 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103057 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)-)
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103022 OF 2025
IN CRL. P.NO.103057/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. ANILKUMAR RUDRAPPA REDDI
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KADLEGUNDI, DEVARBELLAKERE,
HARIHAR, DAVANAGERI DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-577601.
2. SHRI. BEERAPPA FAKIRAPPA KEREGOUDAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KANAKAPUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-581110.
RAKESH Location: 3. SHRI. BEERESH GONEPPA KURUB,
HIGH
S COURT OF AGE: 26 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE,
HARIHAR KARNATAKA
R/O: DUGGAMMAPET, SHIVAJI NAGAR
DAVANAGERI DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-577001.
4. SHRI SHANKARGOUDA VIRUPAKSHAGOWDA PATIL,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MASANAKATTI, HANAGAL,
HAVERI DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-581104.
5. SHRI. NAGARAJ IRAPPA RITTI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: TIMMAPUR, ANAVATTI SORABA,
SHIVAMOGGA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9985
CRL.P No. 103057 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 103022 of 2025
HC-KAR
DISTRICT KARNATAKA-577201.
6. SHRI. PRADEEP RUDRAPPA ARAKERI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SANGUR, HAVERI DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-588148.
7. SHRI. PRASHANTH RAMANNA HASANABADI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHADAGARAHLLI, SHIGGAON
HAVERI DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-5877201.
8. SHRI. JABIULLAH MUBUSAB,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NITAVULLI ROAD, LENIN NAGAR
DANGE PARK ROAD,
DAVANAGERI DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-57004.
9. SHRI. REVANASIDDAYYA VIRAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MALLUR, BYADAGI,
HAVERI DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-581106.
10. SHRI. ISHAPPA MALATESHAPPA BADIGER
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MEDLERI, RANEBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-581211.
11. SHRI. PRAKASH MALLAPPA SIDDANNAVAR,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ASUNDI, RANIBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-581115.
12. SHRI. MALLIKARJUN SOMAPPA,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HONDA CIRCLE,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-577002.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9985
CRL.P No. 103057 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 103022 of 2025
HC-KAR
13. SHRI. BASAVARAJ RAMAPPA G.,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NEAR DUGGAMMA TEMPLE,
KURUBAGERI, DAVANAGERI DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-577139.
14. SHRI. CHAMANNSAB MEHABUBSAB
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: JOHARNAGAR,
DAVANAGERI DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-577139.
15. SHRI. BASAVARAJ MALLAPPA TIPPANNAVAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KANAKAPURA,
CHIKKALINGADALLI,
HAVERI DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-581110.
16. SHRI. IRANNA ABBINANDAN DINAKAR
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. 4TH CROSS, SHIVAJI NAGAR,
HAVERI DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-581110.
17. SHRI SANTHOSH GUDDAPPA RAVATANAKATTI
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HUNSIKATTI, RANIBAENNUR
HAVERI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-581115.
18. SHRI. VEERABASAPPA HOLEBASAPPA KAYAKADA,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DEVARAGUDDA ROAD,
KANCHIGAR ONI, RANIBENNUR
HAVERI DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-581115.
19. SHRI. CHETAN N. NAGARAJ,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O.NITAVALLI 60 FEET ROAD
DAVANAGERI,
KARNATAKA-577004.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9985
CRL.P No. 103057 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 103022 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
THROUGH SIRSI RURAL PS
SIRSI-581401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA .S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SE. 482 OF CR.P.C.
(U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO QUASHING THE FIR DATED
24.07.2025 IN CRIME NO.114/2025 REGISTERED WITH THE SIRSI
RURAL PS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 79 AND 80 OF K.P. ACT AND
112 OF BNS, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DIV)
AND JMFC COURT, SIRSI, UK, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS.
IN CRL. P. NO.103022/2025
BETWEEN:
SHRI. BASAVRAJ VEERAPUR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VEERAPUR, HAVERI DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-581210.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARANATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
THROUGH SIRSI RURAL PS,
SIRSI-581401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.
528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASHING THE FIR DATED
24.07.2025 IN CRIME NO 114/2025 REGISTERED WITH THE SIRSI
RURAL PS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 79 AND 80 OF K.P AND 112
OF BNSS, ACT IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DIV.) AND JMFC COURT
SIRSI UTTAR KANNADA.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9985
CRL.P No. 103057 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 103022 of 2025
HC-KAR
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. Accused Nos.1 to 20 in Crime No.114 of 2025
registered by Sirsi Rural Police Station, Uttara Kannada
District, for the offences punishable under Sections 79 &
80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and Section 112 of
BNS, 2023 have approached this Court in these two
petitions filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023, with a
prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the aforesaid
case, as against them.
2. FIR in Crime No.114 of 2025 was registered by
Sirsi Rural Police Station, Uttara Kannada District for the
aforesaid offences against the petitioners herein, based on
the first information dated 24.07.2025 received from
Smt.Geeta Patil, Police Officer, attached to Sirsi Rural
Police Station, Uttara Kannada. Assailing the correctness
of the same, the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused
Nos.1 to 20 in the FIR, are before this Court.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9985
CRL.P No. 103057 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 103022 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the allegation against the accused in the present case is
that they were indulged in playing game of Andar bahar in
a private resort. The game of Andar bahar has been
considered as a game of skill by this Court and therefore
registration of FIR for the aforesaid offences is bad in law.
He has placed reliance on multiple judgments of this
Court, which has time and again said that game of Andar
bahar is a game of skill and not a game of chance.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the
petition. She submits that in addition to Sections 79 and
80 of the Karnataka Police Act, in the present case,
offence punishable under Section 112 of BNS 2023, is also
invoked and therefore investigation is necessary.
Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.
5. The allegation against the petitioners in the first
information is that, on 24.07.2025 they were found
playing the game of Andar bahar in a resort known as VRR
Home stay owned by accused No.1.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9985
CRL.P No. 103057 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 103022 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. The police conducted a raid to the aforesaid
place, apprehended all the accused and also had recovered
a sum of ₹49,50,436/- along with the pack of cards,
mobile phones and the vehicles belonging to the accused
and thereafter the FIR was registered against the
apprehended accused for the aforesaid offences.
7. This Court in Criminal Petition No.1997 of 2021,
in paragraph Nos.7 to 9 has observed as follows:
“7. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners and
other members of the club who were present at the time of
raid were indulged in playing the game of cards which is
known as Andhar Bahar. This Court in Crl.P.No.9298/2017
disposed of on 30.01.2018, has observed in paragraphs 5 & 6
as under:
5. In another decision reported in Eranna and
others Vs. State of Karnataka [1977(1) Kar.L.J.
274], this court has observed that,-
“Unless the prosecution proved, how the game
of ‘Andar Bahar’ is played and in what manner
bettings are recorded, it could not be inferred that
it was a pure and simple game of chance and not a
game of skill”.
6. This court also observed in the said case
that, though the persons were plaing the game
called ‘Andar Bahar’ in a private house or at a
public house, the court interpreting the provisions
of Section 2(3) of K.P.Act referring to the definition
of ‘Common Gaming House’, has observed that,
though the persons were playing ‘Andar Bahar’
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9985
CRL.P No. 103057 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 103022 of 2025
HC-KAR
inside their house for that reason only it cannot be
called as a common gaming house. When no
complaint has been filed by anybody that the said
house has been converted into a common gaming
house at any point of time. Merely on the ground
as an isolated circumstance, if some persons or the
inmates of the house were playing ‘Andar Bahar’,
at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that
the said house can be called as ‘Common Gaming
House’.”
8. In Crl.P.No.200807/2017 (Ramu & others Vs The State),
the co-ordinate bench of this Court, has held in paragraph 8 as
under:
“8. The third contention which has been raised
by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that,
though the charge sheet has been laid against the
petitioners, there is nothing to demonstrate that
the petitioners-accused were playing Andar Bahar
and it is a game of chance. As could be seen from
the records, no where the material indicates the
type of game, which they are intending to play or
played. Even the complaint and other material
indicates that at a distance by hiding near the
temple, the police officials and the other witnesses
have seen that, two groups have been sat around
and they were playing immediately, thereafter they
have made a raid. In order to say that the
petitioners were playing Andar Bahar, the
prosecution has to prove how the game of Andar
Bahar is played and in what manner the betting are
recorded and how that the play was going on. Only
by seeing at a distance, it could not been inferred
that poor and simple game and no game of skill.
If any betting was registered and even if any
pledge of movables was made in spite of the
betting that itself did not constitute a game of skill
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9985
CRL.P No. 103057 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 103022 of 2025HC-KAR
into a game of chance. If the entire material if it is
perused, it was not clearly proved that the accused
persons were playing Andar Bahar and it is a game
of chance and as such it is not going to attract the
provisions of Sections 78 and 80 of the Act. This,
proposition of law has been laid down in the case of
Eranna & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in
1977(1) Karnataka Law Journal page 274. When
once all the material, which has been produced and
if it does not forthcoming to show that the said
game, which was intended to be or which was
played was a game of chance and was not a game
of skill involved in that game, under such
circumstances the proceedings which have been
initiated by virtue of filing the charge sheet appears
to be not sustainable in law and the same are liable
to be quashed.
Keeping in view the above said facts and
circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed
and proceedings initiated against the petitioners in
C.C.No.227/2016, pending on the file of Civil Judge
and JMFC, Shahabad is hereby quashed.”
9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid pronouncements
rendered by this Court, I am of the view that even in the
present case, admittedly the cards game which was being
played by the petitioners being Andar Bahar, unless the
prosecution specifies as to how the said game is a game of
chance and not a game of skill, registration of criminal case as
against the members of the club cannot be sustained. Further,
as held in Eranna‘s case (supra), admittedly there is no
complaint by any private party that the club premises was
being used as a common gaming house.”
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9985
CRL.P No. 103057 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 103022 of 2025
HC-KAR
8. In Criminal Petition No.200052 of 2016,
disposed off on 30.03.2016, in paragraph 3, it has
observed as follows:
“3. xxx However, the learned counsel for the
petitioners strenuously contends that playing cards in a
private house or in a private property does not amount to
playing any game either of skill or playing game of chance
in a gaming house. Therefore, it does not fall under the
category of the offences under sections 79 and 80 of the
Karnataka Police Act. Further he submits that playing the
game of ‘Andhar-Bahar’, it cannot be said that the said
game is a game of chance, but it is consistently held by
this Court that the said game is a game of skill. When the
game of skill is stated to have been played there is no
question of police initiating any proceeding and proceed
with the investigation for the offences punishable under
sections 79 or 80 of the Karnataka Police Act. In this
regard it is seen that this Court has early in the year 1977
between Eranna and others Vs. State of Karnataka
reported 1977(1) Karnataka Law Journal wherein this
Court has held that the charge against the accused were
they were found playing ‘Andhar-Bahar’ in a club and that
Andhar-Bahar is a game of chance, held Unless the
prosecution proves how the game of Andhar-Bahar is
played and in what manner bettings are recorded, it could
not be inferred that it was a pure and simple game of
chance and not a game of skill.”
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9985
CRL.P No. 103057 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 103022 of 2025
HC-KAR
9. This Court in Criminal Petition No.101883 of
2025 disposed off on 15.05.2025 under similar
circumstances in a case which was registered by the very
same police station for similar offences, in paragraph
Nos.4 and 5 has observed as follows:
“4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the facts involved in this petition is squarely covered by
the decision of this Court in the case of Eranna & Ors. Vs.
State of Karnataka¹, which is subsequently relled by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in several criminal petitions.
One such petition is Crl. P. No.100877/2014, [
Ramakrishna & Others Vs. The State of Karnataka and
Another, disposed of on 13.06.2014]. The Co- ordinate
Bench, in its order passed in the above criminal petition,
at paragraphs 5 and 6 has held as under:
“5. On analysing the above said
provision of law, this Court has rendered a
decision reported In 1971(2) Mys. L.J. 187 in
the case of Chickarangappa & Others Vs.
State of Mysore and another decision reported
in 1977 (1) Κ.L.J. 274 In the case of Eranna
Vs. State of Karnataka, which decisions
declare 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”.
6. In the ruling reported in 1977 (1)
K.L.J. 274 (supra), this Court has
categorically held that, game of ‘Andar Bahar’
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9985
CRL.P No. 103057 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 103022 of 2025
HC-KAR
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
rate 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 made
out against the petitioners. Hence the
conviction of sentence was set aside”.
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9985
CRL.P No. 103057 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 103022 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. In the light of the decision of this Court rendered
in the case of Eranna & Ors. (supra), the issue stands
resolved and no more an res integra, and this Court
deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings qua the
petitioners herein.”
10. From the aforesaid orders passed by this Court,
it is very clear that the police could not have registered
the case against the petitioners for offences punishable
under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, on
the allegation that they were indulged in playing the game
of Andar bahar in a private resort belonging to accused
No.1.
11. So far as the offences punishable under Section
112 of BNS 2023 is concerned, the said provision of law,
would get attracted only if the accused were found
indulging in unauthorised betting or gambling.
12. Section 112 of the BNS 2023 read as follows:
“112. Petty Organised Crime. -(1) Whoever, being a
member of a group or gang, either singly or jointly,
commits any act of theft, snatching, cheating,
unauthorised selling of tickets, unauthorised betting or
gambling, selling of public examination question papers or
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9985
CRL.P No. 103057 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 103022 of 2025HC-KAR
any other similar criminal act, is said to commit petty
organised crime.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this sub-section
“theft” includes trick theft, theft from vehicle, dwelling
house or business premises, cargo theft, pick pocketing,
theft through card skimming, shoplifting and theft of
Automated Teller Machine.
(2) Whoever commits any petty organised crime
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than one year but which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
13. From the reading of the aforesaid provision of
law, it is very clear that unless the accused who is
member of a group or a gang is found indulged in
activities specified in the aforesaid provision, the said
offence does not get attracted. In the present case, there
is no such allegation that accused persons are members of
a group or a gang. It is not the case of the prosecution
that the petitioners are persons with criminal antecedents.
The allegation against the accused in the first information
is that they were found playing the game of card called
Andar bahar in a private resort and therefore the FIR was
registered against them for the offences punishable under
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9985
CRL.P No. 103057 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 103022 of 2025
HC-KAR
Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act and
Section 112 of the BNS 2023. Placing reliance on several
judgments of this Court, this Court has already recorded a
finding that considering the nature of allegations, police
could not have registered a case against the petitioners for
offences punishable under Sections 79 and 80 of the
Karnataka Police Act since the game of Andar bahar is
considered as a game of skill. Therefore even the offence
punishable under Section 112 of BNS 2023 would not get
attracted against the accused in the present case. Under
the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer
made by the petitioners in these two petitions needs to be
granted. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal petition is allowed.
ii. The entire proceeding in Crime No.114 of
2025 registered by Sirsi Rural Police Station,
Uttara Kannada District, for the offences
punishable under Sections 79 & 80 of the
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9985
CRL.P No. 103057 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 103022 of 2025HC-KAR
Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and Section 112
of BNS, 2023 is quashed.
iii. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to file
necessary application before the
jurisdictional Court seeking custody of the
articles seized by the police.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGENMS,KGK
CT:ANB