- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24144 CRL.P No. 4968 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4968 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: AMRITA AGARWAL D/O PRADEEP AGARWAL W/O SANDEEP UPADHYAY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A C-1603, DASNAC THE JEWEL OF NOIDA SECTOR 75 NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH – 201 301 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHISHEK M R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EXCISE DEPARTMENT SUB INSPECTOR-2 RPC LAYOUT RANGE GANDHINAGAR SUB DIVISION BENGALURU WEST BENGALURU - 560 050. 2. MR DEEPAK S EXCISE SUB-INSPECTOR-1 RPC LAYOUT RANGE GANDHINAGAR SUB DIVISION BENGALURU WEST BENGALURU - 560 050. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.5303/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE VI ACMM, BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER ARRAYED AS ACCUSED IN CRIME NO.28/18-19 (ANNEXURE-C). 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:24144 CRL.P No. 4968 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner – accused seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.5303/2020 on the file of the VI ACJM, Bangalore, pursuant to Crime No. 28/2018-19 registered by 1st respondent against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 11, 14, 15, 32 and 38A and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle in which the said liquor bottles were found and the alleged offence is said to have been committed doesn't belong to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle bearing registration No.MP-07-S-4982 that was allegedly said to have been used to commit the aforesaid offences was sold by the petitioner on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24144 CRL.P No. 4968 of 2025 12.11.2018 but failed to transfer the Registration Certificate (RC) of the vehicle against the person who purchased the said vehicle and the alleged offence is said to have been committed on 21.03.2019 and therefore, the petitioner is nowhere connected to the said offence and has been falsely implicated merely because the RC of the said vehicle was still in the name of the petitioner as on the date of commission of the alleged offence and hence, the petitioner had no knowledge of the aforesaid offence. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Palakurti vs. The State of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.200661/2019 dated 28.01.2020. 4. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR does not disclose the presence of the petitioner during the commission of the alleged offence. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said FIR alleges that a male person have been involved in commission of the offence and the said allegations in the FIR will clearly indicate that the petitioner is nowhere involved in the said offence. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24144 CRL.P No. 4968 of 2025 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents in their FIR have stated that while the respondents were trying to intercept the aforesaid vehicle, a male person, who is allegedly said to have been responsible for the said offence left the vehicle and fled the premises. This very fact is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not present at the time of the offence and hence, had no knowledge of the said offence and hence she cannot be guilty of the said offence as held by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Palakurti’s case supra. Under these circumstances, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.5303/2020 on the file of the VI ACJM - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24144 CRL.P No. 4968 of 2025 Bangalore, pursuant to FIR in Crime No.28/2018- 19 registered by the 1st respondent against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 11, 14, 15, 32 and 38A and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1