2012 (6) TMI 929 - HC - Indian Laws

FIR Dismissed for Lack of Evidence; State to Compensate for Illegal Detention Under Gambling Act Violation.

The HC quashed the FIR against the Petitioners under Sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, for lack of evidence of gambling. It ... - Issues Involved:1. Quashing of the FIR under Sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887.2. Allegation of false implication by Respondent Nos. 5 to 8.3. Compensation for illegal detention and harassment.4. Departmental inquiry against Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 for misconduct.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Quashing of the FIR under Sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887:The Petitioners sought to quash the FIR registered against them, arguing that they were playing games of skill, namely Bridge and Rummy, which are excluded from the purview of the Gambling Act. The Court examined the definitions of 'gaming,' 'instruments of gaming,' and 'common gaming-house' under the Act. The Court noted that the FIR did not provide evidence that the Andheri Gymkhana was a common gaming house or that the Petitioners were engaged in gambling. The Court cited precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. K. Satyanarayana, which held that Rummy is a game of skill and not gambling. The Court found no material indicating that the club was making a profit from the games, and therefore, the FIR did not disclose an offense under Sections 4 and 5 of the Gambling Act. Consequently, the complaint was quashed.2. Allegation of false implication by Respondent Nos. 5 to 8:The Petitioners alleged that they were falsely implicated by Respondent Nos. 5 to 8, who conducted the raid without proper evidence and detained them illegally. The Court observed that the police acted on the presumption that a gambling license was required, which is incorrect as there is no provision for such a license under the Gambling Act. The Court also noted that the police did not follow proper procedures, such as obtaining permission from a Magistrate for detaining women after sunset. However, the Court did not find sufficient evidence of malafide intention or misconduct by the Respondents and did not direct any departmental inquiry against them.3. Compensation for illegal detention and harassment:The Petitioners claimed that they were detained illegally, not allowed to contact their families, and denied basic amenities such as medication and toilet facilities. The Court found that the police acted in a high-handed manner and violated the Petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the police did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 46(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which prohibits the arrest of women after sunset without prior permission from a Magistrate. The Court directed the State Government to pay compensation of Rs 1,000/- to each Petitioner and Rs 25,000/- each to the two women Petitioners for the illegal detention and harassment.4. Departmental inquiry against Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 for misconduct:While the Petitioners sought a departmental inquiry against Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 for their alleged misconduct during the raid, the Court did not find sufficient evidence to establish malafide intentions on the part of the Respondents. The Court observed that the actions of the police appeared to be bonafide, albeit misguided, and therefore did not direct any disciplinary action against them. However, the Court emphasized the need for the police to exercise caution and follow proper procedures in future raids to avoid harassment of innocent citizens.Conclusion:The Court quashed the FIR against the Petitioners, directed the State Government to pay compensation for illegal detention, and highlighted the need for police to follow proper procedures in future raids. The Court did not find sufficient evidence to direct a departmental inquiry against the Respondents.