- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4631 CRL.P No. 101714 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101714 OF 2024 BETWEEN: VILAS S/O. MOHAN SOORYAVNSHI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: KURBAR, R/O: SHIVAYOGI CIRCLE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE – 591 307. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH EXCISE INSPECTOR ATHANI P.S., REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, PIN CODE - 585 103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR IN EXCISE P.S. ATHANI NO. 106/2023-24/35SIE/350307 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 10, 13, 32(1), 38(A), 43(A) KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED NO.1 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4631 CRL.P No. 101714 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking quashing of FIR registered by the Exercise Police Station, Athani in No.106/2023- 24/35SIE/350307 registered for offence punishable under Sections 10, 13, 32(1), 38(A) and 43(A) of Karnataka Exercise Act. 2. The brief facts as narrated in the complaint are that: On 29.04.2024 at about 6:00 PM, the Excise Inspector were on patrolling duty during Election and he received an information that one person was carrying Shendi on a two wheeler vehicle bearing Maharashtra passing. He proceeded to the spot and found a person coming on a motorcycle having Maharashtra registration and stopped and he was possessing 10 Litres of Shendi and it was seized under a Mahazar and filed a complaint and on that basis a case came to be registered for offences as noted supra. The petitioner who is arrayed as - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4631 CRL.P No. 101714 of 2024 accused No.1 in the FIR has sought for quashing of the FIR. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent- State. 4. The learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the Exercise Inspector on receipt of credible information ought to have registered the FIR and thereafter proceeded to the spot and seized the Shendi etc. He further submits that the Excise Inspector without registering the FIR has seized the Shendi from possession of the accused No.1. On that point, he placed reliance on the decision of the coordinate of this Court in the case of Sarvesh S/o. Hanamant Sanasidda Vs. State of Karnataka passed in Crl.P. No.100653/2020 C/w. Crl.P.No.100979/2020 decided on 10.09.2020. With this, he prayed for quashing of the FIR. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4631 CRL.P No. 101714 of 2024 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent would contend that the Excise Inspector was on a patrolling duty, at that time, he has received a credible information and proceeded to the spot and seized Shendi from the possession of the petitioner who was carrying it on his two wheeler. As the Excise Inspector was on patrolling duty, as he was not present in his office or Police Station, has not registered the FIR and therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply to the case of the petitioner. With this he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State, perused the FIR, complaint and other documents placed on record. 7. On 29.04.2024 at about 6 PM when the Exercise Sub-Inspector was on patrolling duty during the Lok Sabha Election – 2024, he received a credible information from one unknown person that one person is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4631 CRL.P No. 101714 of 2024 proceeding from Maharashtra Sindunarhe towards Kollhalli village carrying Shendi on his two wheeler. Immediately, the said Excise Sub-Inspector went to the spot along with two Panchas and stopped the two wheeler which was proceeding towards Kollhalli village, the rider of the said motorcycle on seeing them tried to take U-turn, at that time, they caught hold of him and found that there was a plastic Can on the petrol tank of the said two wheeler and they found 10 Litres of Shendi in it and they seized the same under a Mahazar and thereafter, the Excise Inspector has filed a complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR came to be registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 10, 13, 32(1), 38(A), 43(A) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. 8. In the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under: “8. Admittedly when the raid, search and seizure was carried out prior to the registration of FIR, the same is impermissible. Any seizure made - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4631 CRL.P No. 101714 of 2024 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 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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4631 CRL.P No. 101714 of 2024 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.” 9. In the said decision, it is held that the search and seizure carried out without registration of the FIR is impermissible. In the said decision, it is not the case of the prosecution that the CPI of Jamkhandi Rural Police Station was on patrolling duty. In the case on hand, the Excise Inspector who received a credible information was on patrolling duty. It indicate that the Excise Inspector was not in his office or Police Station to register the FIR. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4631 CRL.P No. 101714 of 2024 10. On considering the said aspect, the procedure followed by the Sub-Inspector cannot be found fault with. There are no grounds for quashing the FIR as sought for. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE PJ/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32