- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22069 CRL.P No. 8517 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8517 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: MR REVANASIDDAIAH S/O GURUMURTHI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.422, BEHIND SHANIMAHATMA TEMPLE, MUNIYAMMA GUARDAN CITY, OLD BAYYAPPANANHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 085. PERMANENT RESIDING AT: R/AT NO.E/135, KACHAPUR, JEVARGI TALUK, KALABURGI DISTRICT – 585 325. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJATH H V.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE INDIRANGARA EIB-4 BENGALURU – 560 038. REP: BY THE STAE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.9/2018-19/03IE/030212 REGISTERED BY THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, INDIRANAGAR EIB-4, BENGALURU FOR ALLEGING COMMISSION OF THE O/P/U/S 11,13(1),(A),14(2),15,32,38A OF THE KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT 1965 ON THE FILE HONBLE CJM COURT AT BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22069 CRL.P No. 8517 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of FIR in Crime No.9/2018-19/031E/030212 registered by the respondent - State, pending on the file of CJM, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 11, 13(1)(a), 14(2), 15, 32, 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner – Mr.Revanasiddayya was arraigned as accused No.1 in the aforesaid Crime No.9/2018-19/031E/030212 along with accused Nos.2 and 3. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are punishable under Sections 11, 13(1)(a), 14(2), 15, 32, 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. 4. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to an order of this Court passed in order to point out that Crl.P.No.6678/2018 dated 02.02.2023 as against accused Nos.2 and 3, in view of quashment of criminal - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22069 CRL.P No. 8517 of 2025 proceedings qua accused Nos.2 and 3, the present petitioner who is accused No.1 in the same Crime No.9/2018-19/031E/030212 would be entitled to seek parity. 5. This Court in the case of Mr.Vaibhav Verma & another vs. State of Karnataka – Crl.P.No.6878/2018 dated 02.02.2023, quashed the criminal proceedings qua accused Nos.2 and 3 in the aforesaid crime number and held as under: “On 11.08.2018, the Inspector of Excise, received a credible information that, a user by name Hidayat Khaleel, identified himself to be above 21 years of age, initiated a task on the dunzo mobile app to purchase from a licensed alcohol vending store and since the purchase of the alcohol is permitted to a person over the age of 21 years from a licensed store, the independent contractor in the area, Mr. Revanasiddayya G, accepted to perform the task and Mr. Revanasiddayya G. allegedly purchased the said items from Karnataka Spirit World, being the licensed third-party vendor identified by the user, and handed over the items at Sterling Apartment, Sahakar Nagar, Bengaluru, the place identified by the user as the drop-off location. 2. On 12.08.2018, the Company's personnel learnt that Mr. Revanasiddayya G., the Independent Contractor in the instant task was arrested and subsequently, the company received information that the FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 11, 13 (1) (a), 14(2) and 15 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, Sections 32 & 38A thereof. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22069 CRL.P No. 8517 of 2025 On 13.08.2018, the Company was informed that the Company's Directors, the petitioners herein have also been arraigned as accused in the said case. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, accused Nos. 2 and 3 are before this Court. 3. Mr. Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 & 3 submits that Dunzo Digital Private Limited is an intermediary and intermediary cannot be prosecuted for the aforesaid offences, since they are protected under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 4. He further submits that accused Nos.2 & 3 are the Directors of the Dunzo Digital Private Limited Company, a company incorporated under the Independent Contractor Act. The company having not been arrayed as an accused, the petitioners-accused cannot be held vicariously guilty of the above said offences. In support, reliance is placed on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.6595/2022 disposed of on 25.08.2022. 5. On the other hand, learned HCGP for the State would submit that, the accused No.1 transported liquor in excess of the prescribed limits by using Dunzo App of which accused Nos.2 & 3 are the Directors and as such the registration of the FIR does not warrant any interference. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Whether the intermediary can be prosecuted for the aforesaid offences under the provisions of law was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22069 CRL.P No. 8517 of 2025 examined by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.6595/2022, wherein, it was held that the petitioners therein who are intermediaries, and neither a seller nor supplier of the product in question, and could not have been prosecuted for a crime. 8. In view of the ratio enunciated by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the accused Nos. 2 & 3 who are the Directors of the company intermediary cannot be prosecuted for the offences alleged against them. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Sethi and Another -vs- State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 240 has held as follows: "8.2. It is also required to be noted that the main allegations can be said to be against the company. The company has not been made a party. The allegations are restricted to the Managing Director and the Director of the company respectively. There are no specific allegations against the Managing Director or even the Director. There are no allegations to constitute the vicarious liability. In Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat [Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 668 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 692] , it is observed and held by this Court that the Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the company when the accused is the company. It is further observed and held that the vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. It is further observed that the statute indisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. It is further observed that even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability. In the present case, there are no such specific allegations against the appellants being Managing Director or the Director of the company respectively. Under the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22069 CRL.P No. 8517 of 2025 circumstances also, the impugned criminal proceedings are required to be quashed and set aside." 10. In the instant case, the accused Nos.2 & 3 are arrayed as the Directors of the Company, and the company having not been arraigned as an accused in the FIR, the accused Nos. 2 & 3 cannot be held vicariously guilty along with the Company. Even otherwise, there is no specific allegations as against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 & 3 so as to constitute the commission of the aforesaid offences. 11. In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered view, that the continuation of the criminal investigation against the petitioners-accused will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) Criminal Petition is allowed ii) FIR in Crime No.9/2018-19/03IE/030212 dated 11.08.2018 registered by the Inspector of Excise, Indiranagar EIB-4, Bengaluru insofar it relates to accused Nos.2 & 3 is hereby quashed. In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2022 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.” 6. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that proceedings as against accused Nos. 2 and 3 have been quashed by this Court in Crl.P.No.6878/2018 and consequently, by applying - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22069 CRL.P No. 8517 of 2025 the doctrine of parity, proceedings against the petitioner - accused No.1 in this petition also deserves to be quashed. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The proceedings in Crime No.9/2018-19/031E/030212 registered by the respondent – State, pending on the file of the CJM, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 11, 13(1)(a), 14(2), 15, 32, 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, insofar as the petitioner-accused No.1 are concerned are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.