- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3631 CRL.P No. 100537 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100537 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: YUVARAJ S/O. KRISHNAPPA CHAUVAN AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. ADAVIHULAGBAL TANDA, SOMANAL, GRAM PANCHAYATH, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL, DIST. VIJAYPUR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSHNA P.DHANAVE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (BAGALKOT SUB DIVISION, BAGALKOT), R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER WHO IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 IN MUDHOL/EXCISE P.S.CRIME NO. 14/2023-24 IN C.C.NO.643/2024, COGNIZANCE TAKEN ON 06.08.2024 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 32(1), 38(A) AND 34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE AT 1956 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MUDHOL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.25 18:00:17 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3631 CRL.P No. 100537 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, who has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 32(1), 38(A), and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1956, is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that on 17.10.2023, the complainant received credible information over the phone that liquor purchased in the State of Goa was illegally brought into Karnataka and was being transported from Belgaum to Bagalkot. Acting on this information, the complainant intercepted the car, and upon inspection, it was found that the petitioner was transporting 15 liters of different types of liquor without obtaining a permit. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State. 4. The petitioner/accused No.1 was the driver of the car at the time of the seizure of the liquor. At the time of the seizure, there were three other occupants traveling in the car. Initially, an FIR was registered against all four persons who were in the car. However, the charge sheet was filed only against accused No.1, primarily on the ground that he was the driver of the vehicle. 5. Admittedly, the car does not belong to accused No.1; rather, it belongs to accused No.2. It was the responsibility of accused No.2 to provide an explanation for the unauthorized transportation of liquor. However, accused No.2 was dropped from the charge sheet, and the police committed an error in arraigning - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3631 CRL.P No. 100537 of 2025 the petitioner as accused No.1 solely because he was the driver of the vehicle. 6. The petitioner was arraigned as accused No.1 based on his voluntary statement, wherein it was allegedly stated that the owner of the car was not responsible for the unauthorized transportation of liquor. However, as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act, a voluntary statement made by the accused is inadmissible in law. 7. The offence alleged against the petitioner is cognizable, and before conducting the search, the police were required to either register an FIR or record the information in writing in the Station House Diary. 8. Similarly, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No.100653/2020, disposed of on 10.09.2020, has held in paragraphs 6 to 12 as follows: 6. Heard Shri Girish Yadawad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Jeevan J.Neeralagi, learned AGA for respondent. Perused the papers. 7. The submission of Shri Jeevan Neeralagi, learned AGA are very much practical submissions, which go to the root of the matter. But however what is required to be seen is that whether the law applicable has been followed or not, more particularly, when the matter relates to the criminal proceedings being initiated against the petitioners, for which they will be penaly prosecuted. It is but required in all matters that the procedure as prescribed is followed, this becomes more important when the criminal prosecution involved. 8. Admittedly when the raid, search and seizure was carried out prior to the registration of FIR, the same is impermissible. Any seizure made cannot be relied upon in evidence because the said seizure is tainted. In view thereof, the continuance of the proceedings itself would yield no result, since the very basis of the complaint being - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3631 CRL.P No. 100537 of 2025 seizure of incriminating articles cannot be relied upon during the course of trial. In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the proceedings in Crime No.40/2020 pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi, are required to be quashed and are therefore quashed. 9. This Court has been faced with these kind of similar matters on various occasions, wherein this Court has been constrained to quash the proceedings on account of avoidable procedural lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer or the SHO. The SHO could have avoided these kinds of lapses by merely registering the complaint and thereafter carrying out a raid, search and seizure. However, the submission of Shri Jeevan Neeralagi in this regard also requires due consideration in the sense that the practicality of the situation, timeliness and emergent handling of the matter would not permit the Investigating Officer or the SHO to go back to the Police Station, register the complaint and thereafter conduct raid, search or seizure, because action on this would be required to be taken immediately. 10. Law does not prescribe a time difference between the registration of FIR and conduct of raid, search and seizure law only require that the FIR is registered before raid, search and seizure is conducted. In such situation, it could have been possible for the Investigating Officer to call his Police Station and ask his representatives to register the complaint and furnish him with the complaint number or in the alternative it is also possible for the Police Department to provide all Police Personnel above the Sub-Inspector grade, with such equipment as may be required for registering the FIR online from the spot of occurrence, so that these kind of defenses being taken can be obviated. 11. Such a system is already in operation and used by Traffic Police by making use of their mobiles the traffic police are able to track the offences committed in respect of the vehicles involving in an accident or in case of traffic violation, the earlier offences committed. As also tracking violation by the drivers once the Driving licence is furnished. 12. It is high time that a similar system is adopted even not only for Traffic Police, but also for the Police personal dealing with criminal matters. 9. In such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceeding would be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3631 CRL.P No. 100537 of 2025 C.C.No.643/2024 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol, insofar as it relates to petitioner/accused No.1 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15