In a significant ruling on gaming laws, the Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered against 13 individuals under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, holding that the game of 'Andar Bahar' is a game of skill, not a game of chance. The judgment reaffirms binding precedents that exempt games of skill from the purview of gambling offences, providing clarity for practitioners dealing with similar cases.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, 13 individuals, were arraigned as accused in FIR No. 265/2025 (later renumbered as C.C. No. 26816/2025) registered at Ashok Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, which pertain to gaming and gambling in a common gaming house. The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)) seeking quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings.
Key Facts
- 05.09.2025: FIR registered alleging the petitioners were playing 'Andar Bahar', a card game, in violation of Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act.
- The petitioners were named as accused in the FIR and subsequent charge sheet.
- The game of 'Andar Bahar' involves betting and is traditionally played with cards.
Procedural History
- 05.09.2025: FIR No. 265/2025 registered at Ashok Nagar Police Station.
- Subsequent date: FIR renumbered as C.C. No. 26816/2025 before the JMFC (Traffic Court-I), Bengaluru.
- 2026: Criminal Petition No. 2519 of 2026 filed before the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of FIR No. 265/2025 and C.C. No. 26816/2025.
- A declaration that 'Andar Bahar' is a game of skill, not a game of chance, and thus outside the ambit of Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act.
The Legal Issue
The central legal question was whether the game of 'Andar Bahar' constitutes a game of chance under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, thereby attracting criminal liability, or whether it is a game of skill, exempt from such offences.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners relied on two binding precedents of the Karnataka High Court:
- Chickarangappa & Others v. State of Mysore (1971 (2) Mys. L.J. 187), which held that 'Andar Bahar' is a game of skill.
- Eranna v. State of Karnataka (1977 (1) K.L.J. 274), which reiterated that 'Andar Bahar' does not fall under the definition of gaming in a common house as it involves skill.
The petitioners argued that the facts of the present case were identical to the aforementioned judgments, and thus the FIR and proceedings were unsustainable in law.
For the Respondents
The State, represented by the High Court Government Pleader (HCGP), opposed the petition but did not present substantive arguments distinguishing the precedents cited by the petitioners.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the precedents relied upon by the petitioners and observed:
"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) K.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'."
The Court further quoted Eranna extensively to underscore the legal principle:
"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."
The Court held that the ratio decidendi of Eranna and Chickarangappa was directly applicable to the present case. Since the State had not demonstrated any material distinction, the Court concluded that the proceedings against the petitioners were legally unsustainable.
The Verdict
The Karnataka High Court allowed the criminal petition and passed the following orders:
- Criminal Petition No. 2519 of 2026 is allowed.
- The proceedings in C.C. No. 26816/2025 pending before the JMFC (Traffic Court-I), Bengaluru, are quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioners.
- I.A. No. 1/2026 is disposed of as a consequence of the quashing.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Binding Precedent on Games of Skill
This judgment reaffirms that games of skill are exempt from gambling offences under Sections 79 and 80 of the Karnataka Police Act. Practitioners must:
- Distinguish between games of skill and chance when advising clients or drafting petitions.
- Rely on binding precedents of the High Court to argue for quashing of similar FIRs.
Burden of Proof on the Prosecution
- The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the game in question is one of pure chance to sustain charges under Sections 79 and 80.
- Mere betting or playing in a club does not automatically convert a game of skill into a game of chance.
Procedural Safeguards
- Courts are likely to quash proceedings where the FIR is based on legally unsustainable grounds, especially when binding precedents exist.
- Practitioners should highlight factual similarities with precedents to strengthen arguments for quashing.
Implications for Gaming Laws
- This judgment may influence state-specific gaming laws and their interpretation.
- Operators of games involving skill elements may seek legal clarity to avoid arbitrary prosecutions.
- Future cases may hinge on evidence of skill vs. chance, requiring expert testimony or detailed analysis of game mechanics.
