2017 (6) TMI 1398 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking appropriate writ order and direction for quashing the FIR which is registered by Police Station - gambling activities at a registered club. Rummy is gambling or not? HELD THAT - From perusal of the record it is clear that the petitioner is a Member of the club Saturna Amravati which is a registered club. Copy of registration certificate is filed on record. It was issued by the Assistant Charity Commissioner Amravati. The said club obtained the spot of incident/hall on rent from the petitioner for the purpose of recreational activities. Spot panchanama dated 23-5-2016 shows that P.S.I. Mankar of Police Station Rajapeth received information that gambling was going on on the spot of incident i.e. recreation club thereby they effected raid. Panchanama itself shows that no specific game is mentioned or played by the petitioner and other persons. Panchanama simply says that the petitioner and other persons were playing cards with money and those were seized. It appears that the respondent-police officer filed FIR on assumptions and presumptions stating that the petitioner was running common gaming house. There is nothing to show that the petitioner is/was running any common gaming house. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jaywant Balkrishna Sail Vs. State of Maharashtra 2012 (6) TMI 929 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT held that the prosecution has to prove that the accused were playing gambling i.e. the game of chance. In the cited judgment accused were playing Rummy they were arrested on the presumption that they were playing gambling. All they were playing Rummy in club. All they were reputed persons. The respondents failed to show any prima facie case against the petitioner that the petitioner along with other persons were found playing gambling at the time of effecting raid. There is no any averment in the FIR or charge-sheet that the petitioner along with other persons were found playing gambling a particular game. Documents filed on record shows that the petitioner is one of the members of the club. It is the case of the petitioner that they were playing Rummy. Game of Rummy is not a gambling. Therefore the charge-sheet filed by the respondents in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No. 2 Amravati is liable to be quashed and set aside in respect of the petitioner - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of FIR and charge-sheet under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Allegations of gambling and running a common gaming house under Sections 4 and 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to quash the FIR and charge-sheet related to a raid on a club where recreational activities were being conducted, including playing Rummy. The petitioner argued that no prima facie case existed against them as the activities were legal games of skill, not gambling. The police had seized money but failed to establish any illegal gambling activities.

2. The police contended that the petitioner and others were involved in gambling during the raid. However, the petitioner's counsel highlighted that the raid was conducted without proper evidence of illegal activities. The petitioner's membership in the club and the nature of the games played, such as Rummy, were emphasized to show that no gambling was taking place.

3. The court examined Sections 4 and 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, which require proof of gambling for conviction. Referring to a previous judgment, it was established that playing Rummy does not constitute gambling. The court found that the police failed to demonstrate any gambling activities during the raid, leading to the quashing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner.

4. The court emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the allegations of running a common gaming house, as the raid did not reveal any illegal gambling practices. The petitioner's involvement in legal recreational activities at the club was highlighted, leading to the conclusion that the charge-sheet was unjustified and should be quashed.

5. Relying on legal precedents and the specific provisions of the Act, the court determined that the charge-sheet lacked merit and did not establish any illegal gambling by the petitioner. The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the charge-sheet against the petitioner based on the absence of evidence supporting the allegations of gambling during the raid.