Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar quashed the charge sheet dated 27 December 2022 and summoning order dated 23 May 2023 issued under the Public Gambling Act, 1867 against two applicants. The Court held that the investigation was conducted in violation of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prohibits police officers from investigating non-cognizable offences without prior permission of the Magistrate. The Court further directed the State Government to constitute a High-Powered Committee to recommend legislative reforms for regulating online gaming and public betting, citing the obsolescence of existing laws in the digital era.

The matter arose from an FIR lodged on 13 June 2022 at Police Station Mantola, District Agra, based on information received by Sub-Inspector Vikas Kumar regarding alleged online betting operations conducted by Imran and Irfan, sons of Haroon. The information, received from an informer, stated that the two individuals were running an online betting racket from their residence, and several cases had already been registered against them.

Also Read: HP High Court Quashes Composite Order Under Section 446 CrPC | Says Separate Hearing Must Precede Bail Forfeiture And Penalty

Acting on this information, the police conducted a verification and subsequently a raid on the residence at 19/158, Teela Ajmeri Khan. Although the individuals identified as Imran and Irfan allegedly fled the scene, a black Samsung tablet believed to be used in the betting operation was recovered. The device was sealed and a case was registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867. A charge sheet was filed on 27 December 2022, and the Judicial Magistrate-I, Agra, issued a summoning order on 23 May 2023.

The applicants approached the High Court seeking quashing of both the charge sheet and summoning order, contending that the offence was non-cognizable and the police had not obtained prior permission from the Magistrate, thereby violating Section 155(2) CrPC.

In support of the argument, the petitioners cited the Supreme Court decision in Keshav Lal Thakur v. State of Bihar [(1996) 11 SCC 557], which held that an investigation into a non-cognizable offence without prior permission from the Magistrate is void ab initio and cannot be the basis for taking cognizance.

The State, through the Additional Government Advocate, argued that the allegations were serious, and that procedural irregularities should not override the substantive nature of the allegations. It was further submitted that both applicants had multiple criminal cases registered against them.

Upon examination of the statutory provisions, the Court noted that even with the Uttar Pradesh state amendments, the maximum punishment under the Public Gambling Act remained relatively minor. The Court acknowledged that Sections 3 and 4 criminalize owning or being present in a gambling house but found that the Act does not cover online betting or gambling. The existing law, enacted in 1867, fails to address digital platforms and virtual transactions.

The Court examined amendments made by the Uttar Pradesh Government to the Public Gambling Act in 1952 and 1961, which increased the fines and imprisonment terms. However, the offences still remained non-cognizable, requiring compliance with Section 155(2) CrPC.

The Court observed that "the investigation has been barred by section 155(2) Cr.P.C., therefore, the entire exercise undertaken by the police stands vitiated in law" and recorded that "the impugned charge sheet dated 27.12.2022...as well as impugned summoning order dated 23.05.2023...are hereby quashed with the liberty to police to initiate fresh investigation after complying with existing provisions of law."

In examining the broader legal landscape, the Court noted, "The Public Gambling Act is a pre-digital law. It makes no mention of digital platforms, servers, or cross-border transactions." The Court further stated, "Negligible penalties...do not deter large-scale illegal operations."

The judgment discussed global and domestic efforts to regulate online gambling, referencing frameworks like the UK Gambling Act, Australia's Interactive Gambling Act, and the US state-wise models. The Court also acknowledged legal ambiguities in India concerning fantasy sports and the taxation framework introduced by the GST Council.

It recorded that "modern, technology-sensitive legislation is urgently needed to address the psychological, social, and national security implications of online gaming." The Court flagged issues such as addiction, youth distraction, financial ruin, cybercrime, and jurisdictional limitations of current enforcement mechanisms.

The Court observed, "The rise of fantasy sports platforms like Dream11...has reshaped the Indian digital gaming landscape," but noted that legal recognition remains inconsistent due to gambling being a State subject under the Constitution.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Creation Of Exclusive POCSO Courts On Top Priority |Timelines Under POCSO Act Must Be Adhered To As Far As Possible | Mandates Expedited Trials And Forensic Processing

The Court quashed the charge sheet dated 27 December 2022 and the summoning order dated 23 May 2023 against the applicants under Sections 3 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867. It granted liberty to the police to initiate a fresh investigation in compliance with Section 155(2) CrPC.

The Court further directed the State Government to constitute a High-Powered Committee comprising Prof. K.V. Raju, Economic Advisor to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, as Chairperson, with the Principal Secretary (State Tax) as Member Secretary and other experts as members. The Committee is to examine relevant factors and develop a comprehensive legislative framework for regulating online gaming and betting.

It also directed the Registrar (Compliance) to transmit a copy of the order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, for immediate compliance.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Diwan Saifullah Khan

For the Respondents: Shri H.P. Singh, Additional Government Advocate-I

Case Title: Imran Khan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:78538

Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 26740 of 2024

Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar

[Read/Download order]