- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37168 CRL.P No. 9160 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9160 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. KRISHNAIAH .G.J S/O JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O NO 965, 3RD CROSS 11TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560072. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE KENGERI SUB DIVISION R/P BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU- 560001. 2. MURALI .J S/O JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S.S.T. VEHICLE CHECKING POINT HEAD, MUDDINA PALYA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37168 CRL.P No. 9160 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR NO. 81/2023 AND CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.20160/2023 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE, THE SAME IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI ACJM BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is by the accused seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No.81/2023 and consequent charge sheet filed in C.C.No.20160/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 14 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before respondent No.1 on 10.04.2023, alleging that during the Assembly Election Code of Conduct, while he was deputed for election duty near the Muddina Palya SST vehicle- checking point, at about 8.00 p.m., a Maruti Vitara Brezza bearing registration No.KA-52-M-7376 approached - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37168 CRL.P No. 9160 of 2025 from the side of Deepa Complex. Respondent No.2 stopped the vehicle and, on inspection, found five bottles of Silver Cup Brandy (750 ml each). On being questioned, the accused was unable to produce any permit or authorization for possession of the said liquor. Consequently, respondent No.2 secured independent panch witnesses, conducted a search of the vehicle, and seized the liquor. He thereafter submitted a written complaint to respondent No.1/police, leading to registration of NCR No.94/2023. Upon registration of the NCR, respondent No.1 approached the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking permission and thereafter registered an FIR dated 11.04.2023 for the offence punishable under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. 3. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer laid a charge sheet. The present petition is filed by the accused challenging the very initiation of criminal proceedings, contending that the FIR was registered in respect of a non-cognizable offence - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37168 CRL.P No. 9160 of 2025 without obtaining prior and valid permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate. Reliance is placed on the judgments of a Coordinate Bench reported in (2018) 1 AKR 776 and ILR 2021 Kar 1545. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the question is no longer res integra, inasmuch as this Court has consistently held that FIRs registered in respect of non-cognizable offences, without securing the Magistrate’s permission as mandated under law, are unsustainable and liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader, supporting the prosecution, places reliance on the order sheet maintained in Crime No.81/2023, to contend that the requisite permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate had, in fact, been obtained before registration of the FIR, and therefore, the filing of the charge sheet is justified. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37168 CRL.P No. 9160 of 2025 6. The primary allegations levelled against the accused, even if accepted at their face value, would disclose the commission of offences punishable under Sections 14 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. Upon receipt of the complaint from respondent No.2, the jurisdictional Police Officer, without following the mandatory procedure contemplated under law, proceeded to register an FIR straightaway. Only thereafter was permission sought from the jurisdictional Magistrate to investigate the matter. 7. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to Section 155(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which stipulates that in the case of a non-cognizable offence, the police may investigate the same only “under the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.” The requirement of obtaining prior permission from the Magistrate is not a mere formality but a mandatory safeguard built into the statute to protect individuals from unwarranted prosecution in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37168 CRL.P No. 9160 of 2025 non-cognizable cases. The provision cannot be diluted or treated as a mere directive to be complied with at a later stage. 8. In the present case, though the FIR has been ostensibly registered for an offence under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, the factual allegations clearly attract the provisions of Sections 14 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act. The offences under both enactments are classified as non-cognizable. Consequently, no criminal trial based on a police report can be sustained unless the procedure prescribed under Section 155(3) Cr.P.C. is scrupulously followed. The law envisages that the concerned officer must first place a written complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate; it is only upon the Magistrate passing an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or otherwise authorising investigation that the police acquire jurisdiction to investigate such non-cognizable offences. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37168 CRL.P No. 9160 of 2025 9. The legal position in this regard stands well settled by a catena of decisions, including the judgments of this Court reported in (2018) 1 AKR 776 and ILR 2021 Kar 1545. These authorities categorically hold that offences falling either under Sections 14 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act or under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act are non-cognizable in nature, and investigation into such offences can be undertaken only after securing an express order of the jurisdictional Magistrate. Any investigation initiated without strict adherence to the mandate of Section 155(3) Cr.P.C. is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 10. Examined in the light of the above principles, the case at hand suffers from a fundamental procedural defect. The record indicates that the FIR was registered first and that permission to investigate was sought subsequently. The order sheet placed on record does not disclose any express order passed by the learned Magistrate granting leave to investigate the matter. More - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37168 CRL.P No. 9160 of 2025 significantly, the prosecution has not demonstrated that a proper written complaint, as envisaged under Section 155(3) Cr.P.C., was laid before the Magistrate prior to commencement of investigation. Since the very foundation for conferring jurisdiction upon the Investigating Officer is absent, the entire proceedings, including the FIR and the charge sheet filed thereon, stand vitiated in law and cannot be sustained. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law. The petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the following order is made: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed; (ii) Consequently, the entire proceedings in C.C. No.20160/2023 (arising out of Crime No.81/2023) pending on the file of the learned - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37168 CRL.P No. 9160 of 2025 VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 14 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 113