- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10651 CRL.P No. 102413 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102413 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI SANGAPPA S/O NAGAPPA UGRAN, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TAKKALKI-587 330, TQ. BILAGI AND DIST. BAGALKOT. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. J. BASAVARAJ AND SRI. S.K. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATES) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH BAGALKOT EXCISE POLICE, NOW R/BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 011. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED 05.05.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-A REGISTRATION OF IMPUGNED F.I.R. BY THE RESPONDENT EXCISE POLICE IN CRIME NO.80/2022-23/ 0605IE/060505 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 14, 15, 32(1), 38(A), 43 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965 AS PER ANNEXURE-B, SUBSEQUENT FILING OF CHARGE SHEET NO.TCS/80/2022-23/0605IE/060505 DATED 26.07.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTIALLY THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE DATED 19.08.2023 BY THE TRIAL COURT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 32(1), 38(A), 34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965 AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN CC NO.209/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BILAGI AS PER ANNEXURE-E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10651 CRL.P No. 102413 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. Petitioner is before this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.209 of 2023 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi arising out of Crime No.80/2022-23/0605IE/060505 registered for offences punishable under Sections 14, 15, 32(1), 38(A) and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 by the Inspector of Excise, Bagalkote Sub Division. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that raid was conducted in the present case and the contraband articles were seized under a panchanama, even without registration of an FIR. The same is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. reported in (2012)4 SCC 1. Therefore, the impugned criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed on the said short ground. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10651 CRL.P No. 102413 of 2024 4. Learned HCGP on the other hand submits that after receipt of credible information, the first informant has immediately gone to the spot of crime in order to prevent the accused from escaping from the spot of crime. The contraband articles which were found in the house of the accused were seized and thereafter FIR has been registered, which cannot be found fault with. She submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.102043 of 2024 disposed of on 25.09.2024 in similar circumstances has refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition. 5. FIR in the present case has been undisputedly registered for cognizable offences. In the case of Lalita Kumari vs.State of U.P. reported in (2012)4 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that registration of the FIR is mandatory, if the information discloses commission of cognizable offences and no preliminary enquiry is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10651 CRL.P No. 102413 of 2024 permissible in such a situation, but if the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, but indicate the necessity of an enquiry, then a preliminary enquiry may be conducted, only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not, and in case if it is disclosed that cognizable offence is committed, then FIR must be registered. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if the cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against police officers who do not register FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 6. In the case on hand, information was received by the first informant when he was in his office on 05.05.2023 at about 09.15 p.m. Thereafter, he had summoned the panchas to his office and had proceeded to the house of the petitioner in which the petitioner allegedly had stocked liquor illegally. The allegation found in the first information would go to show a clear case for cognizable offence was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10651 CRL.P No. 102413 of 2024 made out, and since the first informant was in his office, he ought to have registered an FIR in compliance of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. before proceeding further. The law in this regard, as clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra). In the case of Shri.Manjunath, credible information was received by the Sub Inspector of Excise, while he was on patrolling duty, and having regard to the facts and circumstance of the said case, it has been held in the said case that no error or fault can be found in the procedure adopted by the officer who had received the credible information. In the said case, it is observed that the excise officer had received report of likelihood of the offence being committed and he only suspected possession of contraband substance and it is under the said circumstances, it is held that, without ascertaining the truth, there was no requirement for registering FIR. 7. In the present case, the facts and circumstances are totally different and the allegations found in the first - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10651 CRL.P No. 102413 of 2024 information makes out a clear case for cognizable offence. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that, since even before registering FIR in the present case, raid was conducted to the alleged spot and the contraband articles were seized under a panchanamana, which is now made part of the charge sheet, the entire proceedings gets vitiated and therefore continuation of the impugned proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Criminal petition is allowed. ii. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.209 of 2023 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi arising out of Crime No.80/2022- 23/0605IE/060505 registered for offences punishable under Sections 14, 15, 32(1), 38(A) and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 by the Inspector of Excise, Bagalkote - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10651 CRL.P No. 102413 of 2024 Sub Division as against the petitioner is quashed. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KGK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 83