Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Bokka Madhava Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 29 April, 2022

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.1720 OF 2022

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.109 of 2022 of Meerpet Police Station, Rachakonda. The petitioner herein is accused No.5 in the said crime. The offences alleged against the petitioner/A.5 are under Sections 420 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Telangana State Gaming Act (for short, 'the Act').

2. Heard Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned senior counsel, represnting Smt. K.V.Rajasree, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Khaja Vizarath Ali, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. As per the complaint and also the remand report, the allegations against the petitioner herein are that he is a punter. He is inhabitant of H.No.8-2-15/27, Champapet, Ranga Reddy District. He used to go to racecourse at Malakpet, Hyderabad for horse race betting and he hatched a plan to earn money in easy way by betting huge money in horse racing. While he was attending racecourse at Malakpet, he got acquaintance with A.1 who explained about the Bet 365 application to him and also he 2 induced that the petitioner would get more profits by participating horserace betting in his whatsapp group with his mobile No.9640532026 and turned him as punter and added him in his whatsapp group. Since March 2021, he used to participate in horserace betting in A.1 whatsapp group to get more profits.

4. Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the contents of the complaint and remand report lack the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Referring to Section 2(2) of the Act, he would submit that "gaming" means playing a game for winnings or prizes in money or otherwise and includes playing a game of mutka or satta or online gaming for money or any other stakes and lucky board and wagering or betting, except where such wagering or betting takes place upon a horse race, etc. According to him, the contents of the complaint and also remand report lack the ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. With the said submissions, he sought to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.109 of 2022 against the petitioner herein.

5. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the contents of the complaint constitute the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. A.1 has joined the petitioner herein/A.5 in the whatsapp group and thereby the 3 petitioner herein became a punter and from March, 2021, he is participating in horse race betting in whatsapp group created by A.1. Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor has also produced statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Even in the statement of L.W.1, he has specifically mentioned the said facts. L.Ws.2 to 5 police personnel of Meerpet Police Station, reiterated the said facts. Thus, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein with regard to conducting of horse race betting through online through whatsapp group created by A.1. The First Information Report is not an encyclopedia. Several factual aspects including the role played by the petitioner herein/A.5 in commission of the alleged offences needs to be investigated by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation as the matter is now at crime stage.

6. It is relevant to note that in M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd vs. The State Of Maharashtra1, the Apex Court held that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh2, the Apex Court referring to the various judgments rendered by it 1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 2 AIR 2021 SC 931, 4 categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution. The case on hand is not the rarest of the rare case. Prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein/A.5 which needs to be considered by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.

7. As discussed supra, the contents of the complaint as well as remand report, prima facie, lacks the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC. There is no inducement or cheating committed by the petitioner herein. Therefore, the proceedings in Cr.No.109 of 2022 against the petitioner herein/A.5 insofar as the offence under Section 420 IPC cannot go on.

8. Section 3 of the Act deals with the penalty etc., and Section 4 of the Act deals with the penalty for being found gaming in a common gaming house. Section 2(2) of the Act includes online gaming for money or other stakes. The allegation against the petitioner herein is that he is a punter and he is playing horse race betting through online in the whatsapp group created by the A.1. Therefore, prima facie, the contents of the complaint, remand report and statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. constitutes the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of 5 the Act. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.109 of 2022 against the petitioner herein for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

09. In view of the above discussion and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred supra, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed by quashing the proceedings in Cr.No.109 of 2022 of Meerpet Police Station for the offence under Section 420 of IPC only against the petitioner/A.5 herein only. However, the proceedings in the said crime for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Telangana State Gaming Act, are to be continued against the petitioner herein/A.5.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.

___________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:29.04.2022 vvr