IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.8063 OF 2008 Between: Janardhan Praveen Kumar and others …Petitioners A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.8063 OF 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 & A-17 in S.T.C.No.185 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Armoor. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. According to the prosecution, on 18.11.2008 at about 0230 hours, on reliable information that the petitioners were indulging in gaming activity by playing cards with stakes at Classic Function Hall, Perkit, Armoor, the Sub-Inspector of Police along with staff proceeded to the said place and apprehended the petitioners/A-1 to A-17 who were found indulging in cards came and seized 52 playing cards and cash of Rs.13,500/- from their possession under a panchanama. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the alleged offence under Section 9(1) of the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974 (for short ‘the Act’) are not attracted even if it is assumed that the petitioners were playing the game of cards, inasmuch as even as per the prosecution version, they were found so playing at Classic Function Hall where they went to attend a marriage. According to the petitioners, on that night after the marriage was over, they were only relaxing at the venue and they were apprehended by the police even though they have not committed any offence. 5. The petitioners are alleged to have committed offence under Section 9(1) of the Act. Section 9(1) of the Act contemplates penalty for gaming inter alia in any place to which the public have, or are permitted to have, access. Admittedly, even according to the prosecution, the alleged offence was not committed at any public place or even at a place where public have access. The alleged offence is said to have been committed at a marriage function hall which is admittedly a private place where only the invitees to the marriage can have access to. The marriage function hall cannot, therefore, be construed to be a public place or a place to which the members of general public have access on their own. Though there may be gathering of people at the marriage function hall, such gathering is only by virtue of invitation to attend the marriage, which is a private function held in a private function hall. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely upon a decision of this Court in case of K.MUNIRATTNAM[1] wherein this Court held that under the Gaming Act, gaming as such is not an offence but only gaming in a common gaming house or in a public place is made punishable. In the present case, the allegation of the prosecution is not that the offence was committed in a common gaming house, but it is specifically alleged that it was committed in a public place punishable under Section 9(1) of the Act. However, as the place of alleged offence is found to be not a public place nor a place where the members of the public have access, the ingredients of the offence under Section 9(1) of the Act are not attracted. 7. In a decision in PUTHOTA INNAIAH V. PUBLIC PROSECTUOR[2], this Court held that gaming is an offence only when a person indulges himself in games in a gaming house or in a public place. 8. The petitioners/accused are not charged with any offence under Section 4 of the Act which makes it punishable if found gaming in a common gaming house. The petitioners are charged with offence under Section 9(1) of the Act whose ingredients are not attracted to the facts of the present case, even as per the prosecution version. Under those circumstances, it is considered that continuance of further proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-17 in S.T.C.No.185 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Armoor, would not serve any useful purpose and, on the other hand, would only be abuse of process of law. It is, therefore, considered a fit case where the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to quash further proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-17 in S.T.C.No.185 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Armoor and they are accordingly quashed. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd December, 2011 Lrkm [1] AIR 1958 AP 327 [2] 1997(1) ALT (Crl.) 673 (A.P)