- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2264 CRL.P No. 100552 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100552 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. DAVALASAB SHINDOGI S/O. DILAVARSAB AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. INSPECTOR OF EXCISE SAVADATTI RANGE, R/O.H.NO.77, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL MADLUR VILLAGE, TQ. YARAGATTI, DIST.BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA-591 117. 2. PUSHPA GADADI S/O. SADASHIVA AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. POLICE SUB INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, R/O. TUKKANATTI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA-591 224. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AVINASH M ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KHANAPUR EXCISE DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011. 2. MANJUNATH GALAGALLI AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. EXCISE INSPECTOR, R/O. EXCISE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT’S OFFICE, BELAGAVI SUB-DIVISION, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590016, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1) Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.13 12:09:54 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2264 CRL.P No. 100552 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CRIME NO. 29/2022- 23/3402IE/340207 AND CHARGE SHEET NO. TCS/29/2022- 23/3402IE/340207 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 2441/2024 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 11, 14, 15, 32(1), 34,, 38A, 43 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT 1965 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC COURT, KHANAPUR IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS HEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2, who have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 11, 14, 15, 32(1), 34, 38A, and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, are before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are working as Inspector of Excise and Police Sub-Inspector of Excise, seized 452 cartons of liquor from a vehicle that was transporting the liquor unlawfully. The liquor was seized and kept in the Gowdon at the range office. Subsequently, higher authorities directed a raid at the Gowdon, stating that the petitioners had stacked liquor in excess of the seized quantity. Pursuant to these directions, a search and seizure operation was conducted, and an additional 202 cartons of liquor were found, in addition to the 452 cartons that had already been seized in relation to the crime. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2264 CRL.P No. 100552 of 2025 3. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the offence alleged is cognizable, and therefore, before conducting the investigation, the FIR should have been registered or, alternatively, the information should have been recorded in the Station House Diary. The petitioners contend that the failure to follow this procedure vitiates the investigation. In support of this argument, reliance is placed on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No. 100897/2021. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioners, having stacked the liquor in excess of the seized quantity, have committed the alleged offences. Therefore, the allegations against the petitioners should be considered at the time of trial, and no interference is warranted at this stage. The learned Additional Government Advocate seeks the dismissal of the petition. 5. 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 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2264 CRL.P No. 100552 of 2025 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 exigences if it is apprehended that the offender may escape and distruciton 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. 8. In such circumstances, continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. According I pass the following: i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2264 CRL.P No. 100552 of 2025 ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2441/2024, pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Khanapur, insofar it relates to the petitioners herein is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR Ct:vh List No.: 2 Sl No.: 48