JUDGMENT Heard Mr. R.M. Daga, learned counsel for the applicants; and Mr M K Pathan, learned APP for respondent. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of respective learned counsel, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. By this application filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the applicants seek quashing of the FIR and all further proceedings initiated by Wadi Police Station, Nagpur under section 12 of the of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 ( in short, "the Act of 1887" ) prusuant to crime registered as No. 3077/2011 registered on 27.2.2011. It is the case of the applicants that they are peace-loving and law abiding citizens R/o Nagpur and businessman by profession; they are falsely implicated in the case without any justifiable evidence against them in an alleged raid conducted by the police upon a clandestine tip-off. The FIR which was lodged at Wadi Police Station on 27.2.2011 under section 12 of the Act of 1887 at the instance of Satish Virji Gavit, who reported the alleged incident to Wadi Police Station. According to him, he is serving as PSI at Wadi Police Station and on 27.2.2011, while he was on duty at Wadi Police Station at about 1300 hours some unknown persons made a telephone call to inform that at Agrawal Plantation, Surabardi, Midas in an open small area of lawn in front of Cottage No. 4, some six or seven persons were playing cards and gambling. On that basis, the police team was formed in order to raid the said spot. Upon raiding, they have found 6/7 persons gambling and on that basis they apprehended the alleged gamblers and alleged to have recovered a sum of Rs. 60,217/- and two sets of playing cards. Accordingly, the complaint was lodged. It is grievance of the applicants that assuming for the sake of arguments that applicants were found playing cards they were not playing in any public street or in any public place or at any such place to which members of public is having an access and, therefore, requirements of Section 12 (a) of the Act of 1887 are not satisfied as against the applicants. It is specifically contended that FIR does not disclose the spot of incident as a public place, therefore, penal provision of Section 12(a) of the Act of 1887 is not attracted. It is specifically contended that FIR does not disclose the spot of incident as a public place, therefore, penal provision of Section 12(a) of the Act of 1887 is not attracted. According to the applicants, the applicant no. 1 is the owner of the agricultural land at Mouza Surabardi and is lawful owner of said Cottage No.4 which is shown as spot of incident. It is private property. The applicants had gathered there for discussion and talk regarding expansion of their respective businesses and that they were not gaming in any manner. Thus, it is contended that the FIR taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety do not constitute the alleged offence punishable under section 12 of the Act of 1887. It is, therefore, submitted that on the basis of such vague, absurd or mala fide allegations, the proceedings initiated vide Cr. No. 3077/2011 registered on 27.2.2011 are liable to be quashed and set aside. The applicants, therefore, pray for exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of the Code. 4. I have perused the copy of the FIR and complaint annexed with the application. It does mention the spot of alleged incident of gaming as Agrawal Plantation, Surabardi, Midas, small open area in front of Cottage No.4. The respondent was given opportunity to contest this application. The Respondent filed reply-affidavit sworn by PSI Shri Satish Virji Gavit who is the first informant or complainant in the case. It appears that the specific contention is raised as Ground No. 10 by the applicants to the effect that ingredients of Section 12 of the Act are not satisfied for the reason that the alleged spot shown in the FIR is neither in the public street nor is a place to which members of public have access and, as such, requirement of Sec. 12 (a) is not satisfied against them. This contention is not controverted in the reply. In fact, it is stated in the reply specifically in paragraph 2 that the accused persons/applicants were arrested by the Investigating Officer and police party, while playing with the help of 52 playing cards in the lawn in the above-mentioned premises. This contention is not controverted in the reply. In fact, it is stated in the reply specifically in paragraph 2 that the accused persons/applicants were arrested by the Investigating Officer and police party, while playing with the help of 52 playing cards in the lawn in the above-mentioned premises. Accepting the statement as it is in affidavit-in reply filed by the first informant himself and looking to the provisions of section 12 (a) about power to arrest without warrant for gaming or reasonably suspected to be gaming in public streets, a police officer may apprehend and search without warrant any person found gaming or reasonably suspected to be gaming in any public street or thoroughfare, or in any place to which the public is permitted to have access or in any race course. The necessary ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 12(a) of the Act of 1887 is that the gaming must be actually going on in a public place or thoroughfare where the accused are apprehended and searched. The prosecution can succeed in such cases only on the basis of proving the necessary ingredients of the offence that alleged gaming was going on at the public place or thoroughfare to which the public were permitted to have access. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants who placed reliance upon ruling in State of Kerala vs. Cherian : AIR 1967 Kerala 106 in order to submit that in the present case, the State itself has admitted in their affidavit in reply that the alleged gambling was going on in the private premises of Agrawal Farm/Plantation at Surabardi, Nagpur, which was owned by applicant no. 1 and since it was a private premises, it cannot be construed as a public place or such place to which public would have access to it. Such premises cannot come within the mischief of penal section 12 (a) of the said Act. It appears that in the ruling cited above, in paragraph 2, it is observed that there can be no doubt that the compound where the accused were found gaming will not come within the meaning of the term" common gaming house" and that being so the conviction under section 8 is not maintainable. In another ruling Arambham vs. Manipur Administration: AIR 1962 Manipur 20 it is observed that private house cannot be construed as a public place or public street. 6. In another ruling Arambham vs. Manipur Administration: AIR 1962 Manipur 20 it is observed that private house cannot be construed as a public place or public street. 6. Considering the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State it does appears that the alleged offence occurred in the private premises of Agrawal Farm/Plantation, Surabardi, Nagpur which would not attract the penal section or section 12 (a) of the Act. Section 12(a) of the Act of 1887 reads thus: "12. Power to arrest without warrant for gaming, and setting birds and animals to fight in public streets: A Police Officer may apprehend and search without warrant (a) any person found gaming or reasonably suspected to be gaming in any public street or thoroughfare, or in any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access or in any racecourse. (b)... (c)..." 7. Learned APP found it difficult to explain as to how an open lawn in front of Cottage No.4 situated at private premises of Agrawal Farm/Plantation at Surabardi, Nagpur can be construed as a public place or such place to which members of public would have access. That being so, looking at the FIR as it is and accepting the accusations as they are for want of essential ingredients, no fruitful purpose can be served by continuing the prosecution while there are no chances of conviction. Hence, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A) which is couched in the following terms: "A. Quash F.I.R. and all further proceedings thereto, initiated against the applicants by Police Station Wadi Dist. Nagpur for offence under section 12 of the Bombay prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 vide C.R. No. 3077/2011 registered on 27.2.2011." Application is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Application allowed.