The Bombay High Court has recently dismissed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against Wingame Enterprises owner booked for gambling’ under the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887.
The division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre & MM Sathaye quashed the FIR lodged against Akshay Matkar while observing that the game is one of skill that doesn’t come within the extent of ‘gambling’.
However, the game includes Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) on the problems of geometry & mathematics.
Therefore, the bench examines the manual user of the game which indicated that a player is required to solve all the mathematical quizzes that are based on different combinations for geometric figures, and also assigned specific values and based on the equations, a mathematical answer is to be found and the answer is to be given in the MCQs format.
The bench observed in its order passed on March 30 but made available on Thursday that, “After the activity is carried out in time bound manner, the player advances in the stages of the game. From the perusal of the examples given in the manual, as well as the model answer sheet in which points are calculated on the basis of answers to various Quizzes, we are of the considered opinion that this online game is not a game of chance but there is mathematical skill involved. Apart from said skill, observation and ability to solve mathematical equations within time bound manner is also required, which definitely requires skills.”
The bench noted from the FIR lodged on November 15, 2022 that a raid was being conducted by the police in a public place in the Satara district, where money was being collected by Satish Botalji from the customers that is based on the numbers being reflected on the computer. The police contended that Botalji had no licence to run an online gaming or gambling game and thus violated provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887.
The bench held that, “In our view, the present online game stands on better footing and the it is definitely preponderantly a game of skill and therefore, it cannot be said from mere averments in the FIR that any offense was committed under the said Act.”
Further, the bench stated that online gaming doesn’t include ‘wagering or betting’ as mandated for a game to come within the definition of ‘gambling.’
The bench stated while quashing the FIR in question, “Therefore, in our view with the allegations in the FIR as they stand, if the Petitioners are made to face trial, it will be an abuse of process of law, since no offense is made out as alleged in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
