- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11130 CRL.P No. 3306 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3306 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI G. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O SRI. M. GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.41, GROUND FLOOR, HABEEB HOUSE, 2ND A MAIN ROAD, KANAKASHREE LAYOUT, BYRATHI CROSS, NEAR GREEN SUPER MARKET, AVALAHALLI MAIN ROAD, KOTHANUR, BENGALURU-560 077. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINOD N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE EXCISE PS INDIRANAGARA RANGE REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. ROHITH B S MAJOR R/AT, INSPECTOR OF EXCISE RANGE - 26, BUD - 5, BANGALORE - 560 038. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER THAT IS ACCUSED IN C.C.NO.63767/2024 THAT IS CRIME NO.80/2023- 24/4004IE/400404 REGISTERED BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11130 CRL.P No. 3306 of 2025 INDIRANAGAR RANGE, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 11, 13(1) AND (a), 15, 32, 34, 38(A) OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT 1965 PENDING BEFORE 10TH ACMM AT BENGALURU THAT IS ANNEXURE D AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The petitioner-accused, who is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 11, 13(1) & (a), 15, 32, 34, 38A, of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, is before this Court seeking relief. 3. The prosecution alleges that, on 16.4.2024, when the complainant was patrolling, the vehicle driven by the petitioner- accused was intercepted and upon inspection it was discovered that the petitioner was transporting 6 liters of Whisky without permit. 4. After considering the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the parties, the following is noted: a. Admittedly, the offence alleged against the petitioners is cognizable, and therefore, before conducting the investigation, the respondent, upon receiving directions from the higher authorities, was required to either register - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11130 CRL.P No. 3306 of 2025 the FIR or record the information in the Station House Diary. b. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in identical circumstances, after reviewing the decision of the Apex Court, held that excise officials conducted a raid without registering the FIR based on credible information received by them. Therefore, it is apparent from the record that the procedure prescribed under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. was not followed, and as such, the FIR is untenable. 5. In the present case, Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Act, 2023, which deals with the reporting of information on cognizable offences, states that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence shall be reported in writing. Before conducting an investigation, the registration of the FIR is mandatory. 6. In the instant case, the respondent conducted the investigation without registering the FIR or recording the reason in writing in the Station House Diary in case of exigencies if it is apprehended that the offender may escape and destruction of evidence . As a result, the investigation conducted, culminating in the taking of cognizance of the alleged offences, stands vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions contained in Section 173 of the BNSS Act, 2023. 7. Section 53 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, deals with the power of Magistrate to issue a warrant and states that if a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11130 CRL.P No. 3306 of 2025 Magistrate, upon information and after such enquiry as he thinks necessary, has reason to believe that an offence has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, he may issue a warrant. 8. Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 deals with power to search without warrant and states that whenever the Excise Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner or any Police Officer not below the rank of an officer in charge of a Police Station or any Excise Officer not below such rank as may be prescribed, has reason to believe that an offence has been, is being, or is likely to be committed, and that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording the offender an opportunity of escape or of concealing evidence of the offence, he may, after recording the grounds of his belief can detain and search 9. In such circumstances, continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 10. According I pass the following: i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.63767/2024, pending on the file of the 10th ACMM at Bangalore, insofar it relates to the petitioner herein is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR