Telangana High Court
Pipreye Vishal Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 1 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11182 of 2025
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1418 of 2021 on the file of the learned XII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-I Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Telangana State Gaming Act, 1974.
2. Heard Sri N. Praveen, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1-State. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts, as culled out from the charge sheet, are that on 23.07.2020, respondent No.2 received information about gambling, which was in progress at Anmul Catering Godown at Kattedan, and proceeded to the scene and found that the accused were playing three cards game by betting money. Therefore, the petitioner and other accused were taken into custody and also seized net cash of Rs.1,32,450/- and 52 playing cards from the possession of the accused at the instance of Panchas. Later, the 2 Police have registered a case against the petitioner and other accused for the aforesaid offence and filed charge sheet against them.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner; the police have erred in registering a case in FIR No.686 of 2020 against the petitioner and consequently filed charge sheet, which is illegal and arbitrary; the Police have registered the case mechanically without conducting proper enquiry; the petitioner is having good name and reputation in the society and without considering the said fact, the Police have mechanically registered the case without following any procedure laid down under the Telangana State Gaming Act and the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the petitioner was involved in illegal gambling. It is further contended that the game of playing cards is not an offence per-se, it is an offence when it is carried on in a public place or in a common gaming house as defined under the Gaming Act and until and unless the prosecution proves that there was profit or gain by the owner or occupier of the place, the same would not come under the definition of common gaming house. It is also contended that mere playing of cards with stakes will not make the club a common gaming house as 3 envisaged under the Gaming Act and the charge sheet do not disclose whether the premises is a gaming house or not as per Section 2(i) of the T.S. Gaming Act and if the same is not a gaming house, then the petitioner cannot be held liable under Section 3 of Telangana Gaming Act. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. In order to support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in Rudra Srinivas, Karimnagar v. The State of Telangana 1 and Tholem Narsimha Rao, Kothegudem v. Public Prosecutor 2.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the matter has to be decided after conducting trial by the Court below and the proceedings cannot be quashed at this juncture. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
7. Basing on the search and seizure report, a crime was registered against the petitioner and other accused vide FIR No.686 of 2020.
1 Crl.P.No.12743 of 2016 dated 21.09.2022 2 Crl.P.No.6987 of 2016 dated 26.09.2022 4
8. On perusal of seizure report, it is evident that the Police seized an amount of Rs.1,32,450/- and 52 playing cards from the accused. No seizure is made from the petitioner/accused No.1 and he is alleged to be the organizer of the said game.
9. Coming to the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in Rudra Srinivas, Karimnagar v. The State of Telangana (1 supra), this Court has held as under:
"The Police have seized betting money of Rs.27,330/- and five mobile phones and one motorcycle and 52 playing cards from their possession under the cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators.
09. The other ground on which the petitioners have been agitating charge sheet is that the place, where the accused were arrested is not a common gaming house. As per the charge sheet, the accused No.1 is charged for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the A.P.Gaming Act. It is to be noted that in order to fasten the criminal liability under Section 3 and 4 of the A.P. Gaming Act, the de-facto complainant has to establish that whoever is found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming in a common gaming house shall be punished.
Section 3 of the A.P. Gaming Act runs as under:
"3. Penalty for opening, etc., a common gaming house
- 1[(1) Any person who opens, keeps, operates, uses or permits to be used any common gaming house or online gaming or conducts or assists in conducting the business of any common gaming house or advances or furnishes money for gaming therein, shall be punishable -
(i) For the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one (1) year and with fine which may 5 extend to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only); but in the absence of special reasons to be recorded in writing, the punishment awarded under this clause shall be imprisonment for not less than three (3) months and fine of not less than Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only);
(ii) For every subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two (2) years and with fine which may extend to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), but in absence of special reasons to be recorded in writing the punishment awarded under this clause shall be
- (a) For a second offence, imprisonment for not less than six (6) months and fine of not less than Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand only); (b) For a third or subsequent offence, imprisonment for not less than one (1) year and fine of not less than Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).] Explanation: - For the purpose of this section, the expression "person" includes the owner, or as the case may be, the occupier of the place used as a common gaming house and where such place belongs to or is occupied by a club, society or other association of persons, the person having the care or management of such place. (2) It shall not be necessary, in order to convict any person for opening, keeping or using or permitting the use of common gaming house or of being concerned with the care or management of a common gaming house, to prove that any person found therein was gaming for money, wager, bet or stake."
10. Similarly, Section 4 of the A.P. Gaming Act runs as under:
"4. 3[Penalty for being found gaming in a common gaming house - Whoever is found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming in a common gaming house shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six (6) months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) or with both.] 1. Substituted by the Act No. 43 of 2020, S.3.
2. Inserted by the Act No. 43 of 2020, S.4. 3. Substituted 6 by the Act No. 43 of 2020, S.5. Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, any person found in any common gaming house during gaming therein shall be presumed to have been present there for the purpose of gaming."
11. As per Section 2 (1) of the Act, the definition of common gaming house is as under:
"(1) 'common gaming house', means -
(i) in the case of gaming -
(a) on a horse-race except in the manner provided in clause (2); or (b) on the market price of cotton, bullion other commodity or on the digits of the number used for stating such price; or
(c) on the ground of variation in the market price of any commodity specified in item (b) or on the digits of the number used for stating the amount of such variation; or
(d) on the market price of stock or share or on the digits of the number used for stating such price; or
(e) on the number of registration or on the digits of the number of registration of any motor vehicle using a public place; or
(f) on any transaction or scheme of wagering or betting in which the receipt or distribution of winnings of prizes, in money or otherwise, is made to depend on chance, any house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel, 1[cyber space] or any place whatsoever in which the gaming takes place or in which the horses or other instruments of gaming, are kept or used for such gaming;
2["(ii) in the case of any other form of gaming, any house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel, cyber space or any place whatsoever in which any instrument of gaming are kept or used for the profit or gain of the person owning, occupying, using or keeping such house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel, cyber space or any place whether by way of charge, for the use of such house, 7 room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel, cyber space or any place or instruments of gaming or otherwise howsoever; Explanation:- For the purpose of clause(ii), any premise or place or cyber space belonging to or occupied by a club, society, company or other associations of persons, whether incorporated or not, which is used or kept for the purpose of gaming shall be deemed to be a common gaming house notwithstanding that there is no profit or gain for the club, society, company or other associations of persons on account thereof."
12. Therefore, in order to fasten the liability under Section 3 of the A.P.Gaming Act, the prosecution is expected to prove that the place, where the raid was done is a common gaming house. Admittedly, the place, where the offence was committed is a residential house of accused No.1. In order to fasten the liability under Section 2(1)(ii) of the A.P. Gaming Act, in order to term the house of accused No.1 as common gaming house, it is to be proved that the person must use the said premises of his house by charging for the house of said premises.
(ii) In Tholem Narsimha Rao, Kothegudem v. Public Prosecutor (2 supra), this Court has held as under:
"On entering into the said premises, they found that gambling was going on and all eight persons were playing cards by staking amount.
...
...
16. Considering the circumstances, the premises where the petitioners were playing Cards, cannot be termed as a gaming house as defined under Section 2 (1) of Gaming Act, since it is not a gaming house Section 3 of the Gaming Act is not applicable, thereby the petitioners cannot be punished for the offence punishable under Section 4 of A.P.Gaming Act."8
10. The above judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are very much applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. In the present case, the petitioner/accused No.1 is alleged to be the organizer of the said game and no seizure is made from him and the premises where the accused were apprehended is Anmul Catering Godown at Kattedan. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that a Godown cannot be held to be a common gaming house as defined under Section 2(i) of the TS Gaming Act. Hence, the ingredients under the provisions of T.S. Gaming Act do not attract as there is no evidence to show that the Godown where the accused were playing three cards game by betting money. Therefore, the Godown cannot be termed as common gaming house. Hence, the offences alleged against the petitioner are not at all attracted. In the said circumstances, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C. No.1418 of 2021 on the file of the learned XII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-I Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed.
9
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Dt.01.09.2025 Pvt Ys k