- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6887 WP No. 3613 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 3613 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: V.CHITTI BABU, S/O V.VARADARAJULU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.154, 3RD CROSS, GIRINAGAR 1ST PHASE, BENGALURU SOUTH – 560 085, PARTNER OF LEGACY, BREWING COMPANY, REGISTERED UNDER THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH S.GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE, M.M.ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA, BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 026, REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6887 WP No. 3613 of 2026 2. NAVEEN M. S., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR POLICE STATION, RR NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 098. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.32/2026 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT - RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR POLICE STATION DATED 01.02.2026 ON THE FILE OF THE 46TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 77 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 1986 AND SECTION 36(1)(G) OF THE KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PREIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6887 WP No. 3613 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.32/2026 registered for offences punishable under Sections 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and Section 36(1)(G) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. 2. Heard Sri.Sarath S Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the 1st respondent. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: 3.1. One Reyan Jacob commits suicide by jumping from the 7th floor of his apartment on 31.01.2026. An UDR case comes to be registered in UDR No.4/2026 on the same day. During the course of investigation, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.32/2026 against the petitioner for permitting the boy to consume alcohol in ‘Legacy Brewing Company' Rajarajeshwarinagar. The said boy had allegedly - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6887 WP No. 3613 of 2026 consumed liquor and smoked and this was permitted by the said Brewing Company in violation of law. The registration of the crime has led the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the offence under the Excise Act could not have been registered without, at the outset, securing permission from the hands of the learned Magistrate, as they are non- cognizable offences. He has placed reliance upon two judgments of this Court, one of which is rendered by this Court to buttress his submission. 5. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent-State would seek to defend the action of registering the crime but is not in a position to dispute the position of law as is laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court or this Court as the case would be. He would contend that liberty be reserved to take action against this person for having permitted the under-aged persons to consume alcohol. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6887 WP No. 3613 of 2026 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. 8. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and Section 36(1)(g) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. They are admittedly non-cognizable offences. On a non-cognizable offence, a crime could not have been registered without the permission of the learned Magistrate as obtaining under Section 155(2) of the earlier regime the Cr.P.C and Section 174 of the present regime the BNSS. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.52182/2019 disposed on 27.01.2020, has held as follows: "This petition has been filed by petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.1/2019 pending on the file of JMFC-III Court, Mangalore, for the offence punishable under Section 36 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6887 WP No. 3613 of 2026 3. The written complaint was filed alleging that on the intervening night of 5.1.2019 and 6.1.2019 complainant received credible information that certain disturbance is going on near Onyx Air Lounge and Kitchen and she went inside the premise. On enquiry she came to know that intoxicant were being sold to the customers even after 11.30 p.m. and thereby they have violated the provisions of Section 36 of the Karnataka Excise Act. On the basis of the complaint a case has been registered. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused that in violation of the provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. the case has been registered and thereafter the same has been intimated to the learned Magistrate. Admittedly the case registered under Section 36 of the Excise Act is a non-cognizable offence and the investigating officer has to follow the mandate of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and without prior permission conducting of the investigation and registration of the case is violation and abuse of process of law. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader fairly submitted that subsequently after registration of the case when intimation has been given to the learned Magistrate, no prior permission has been obtained as contemplated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. On these ground he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 7. Admittedly, the case has been registered under Section 36 of the Karnataka Excise Act and it is a non- cognizable offence. Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. mandates that when once an information is received, the investigating agency, has to obtain necessary permission and thereafter he has to investigate and if he fails to obtain necessary permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate, as per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. then it is nothing but violation of procedure established by law and it amounts to nothing but abuse of process of law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6887 WP No. 3613 of 2026 8. Though it is contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader that subsequently the intimation has been given, but it is not in compliance with provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Taking into consideration the fair submissions of the learned High Court Government Pleader and on perusal of the records, it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In that light, petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated in Crime No.1/2019 of Barke Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 36 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 pending on the file of JMFC-III Court, Mangalore, is herby quashed." 9. Later this Court in identical circumstances in Crl.P.No.6384/2022 C/w Crl.P.No.6810/2022, disposed on 08.09.2022, has held as follows: "7. The afore-narrated fact of raid being conducted on “Social Bar and Restaurant” is not in dispute. The licence holder and the Bar tenders are the petitioners in the cases at hand is also not in dispute. The crux of the issue is whether the petitioners are guilty of allegedly serving alcohol to two boys and one girl who are aged above 18 years but below 21 years. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Section 36 (1)(b) of the Act and Section 103 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. Section 36 of the Act reads as follows: “36. Penalty for misconduct of licensee, etc.- (1) Whoever, being the holder of a licence or permit granted under this Act, or being in the employ of such holder and acting on his behalf,- (a) fails to produce such licence or permit on the demand of any Excise Officer or of any other person duly empowered to make such demand; or - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6887 WP No. 3613 of 2026 (b) wilfully does or omits to do, anything in breach of any of the conditions of his licence, or permit, not otherwise provided for in this Act; or (c) save in a case provided for by section 32 wilfully contravenes any rule made under section 71; or (d) permits drunkenness, disorderly conduct or gaming in any place wherein any intoxicant is sold or manufactured; or (e) permits or suffers persons whom he knows or has reason to believe to have been convicted of any non-bailable offence, or who are reputed prostitutes or habitual offenders, to resort to, or assemble or remain in or on the premises where any excisable article is sold or manufactured; or (f) sells any intoxicant to a person who is drunk; or (g) sells or gives any intoxicant to any child apparently under eighteen years of age or permits or suffers such child or remain in or on the premises where any excisable article is sold, or manufactured; or (h) in contravention of section 20 employs or permits to be employed on any part of his licenced premises referred to in that section any child or women, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. (2) Where any holder of a licence or permit under this Act or any person in his employ or acting on his behalf is charged with permitting drunkenness on the premises of such holder, and it is proved that any person was drunk on such premises, it shall lie on the person charged to prove that the holder of the licence and the persons employed by him took all reasonable steps for preventing drunkenness on such premises.” (Emphasis supplied) Section 36 deals with penalty for misconduct of the licensee. The offence alleged is under Section 36(1)(b). Section 36(1)(b) directs that whoever being holder of a - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6887 WP No. 3613 of 2026 licence or employee acting on his behalf willfully does or omits to do anything in breach of any conditions of the licence or permit not otherwise provided under the Act would be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 3 months or with fine. The offence now alleged is that the licensee/one of the petitioners in these petitions has violated the conditions of licence willfully. The conditions of licence are dealt with under the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 (‘the Rules’ for short). The Rules while granting licence to the licensee mandate that alcohol should be served to persons above the age of 21 years. Therefore, the issue now is whether the violation of Rules would attract the offence. 8. Section 36(1)(g) makes an offence against the licensee if he sells or gives any intoxicant to any child apparently under 18 years of age or permits the said child to remain in the premises where any such item is sold. Therefore, the act makes serving of alcohol to a child below 18 years of age as an offence. The licence that is granted to the licensee conditions that the liquor should be served only to persons above 21 years of age. Therefore, the situation now is that the Act makes it an offence to serve alcohol to persons below the age of 18 years. The Rules provide that serving of alcohol by a licensee to a person below 21 years of age being in violation of conditions of licence and violation of conditions of licence is made punishable under Section 36(1)(b) of the Act. There is incongruity in the Rules as the Rules run counter to Section 36(1)(g) of the Act. Section 36(1)(g) being penalty for misconduct of a licensee mandates that alcohol should not be served to persons below 18 years; the condition of licence cannot run counter to it and make it below 21 years of age. 9. The offence alleged is under Section 36(1)(b) of the Act and the violation is said to be of the terms of licence which directs that alcohol to a person below 21 years of age should not be served. Section 36(1)(g) makes it an offence, if alcohol is served to a person below 18 years of age. Therefore, the present case is violation of terms of licence which is in contrast or contrary to what the Act mandates. The serving of alcohol for a person beyond 18 years of age is in consonance with the Act and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6887 WP No. 3613 of 2026 contrary to the Rules, that too the Rules of issuance of licence. Therefore, the very invocation of the provision against the petitioners is contrary law. Permitting further proceedings to continue on such contravention would become an abuse of the process of the law. 10. The other issue is, whether search or seizure can be conducted on a non-cognizable offence i.e. Section 36 of the Act without the nod of the Magistrate as obtaining under Section 155(2) of the CrPC. The issue need not detain this Court or delve deep into the matter in view of the earlier decisions of this Court. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of AKSHITH CHOUTA (supra) has held as follows: “7. Admittedly, the case has been registered under Section 36 of the Karnataka Excise Act and it is a non- cognizable offence. Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. mandates that when once an information is received, the investigating agency, as to obtain necessary permission and thereafter he has to investigate and if he fails to obtain necessary permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate, as per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. then it is nothing but violation of procedure established by law and it amounts to nothing but abuse of process of law. 8. Though it is contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader that subsequently the intimation has been given, but it is not in compliance with provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Taking into consideration the fair submissions of the learned High Court Government Pleader and on perusal of the records, it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In that light, petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated in Crime No.1/2019 of Barke Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 36 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 pending on the file of the JMFC-III Court, Mangalore, is hereby quashed.” A little earlier to the said judgment another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ABHIJEET LALCHAND LANDGE interpreting the mandate of Sections 53 and 54 of the Act which are akin to the offences punishable under Section 36 of the Act has held as follows: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6887 WP No. 3613 of 2026 “3. Learned Counsel for petitioners places reliance on the ruling by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Crl.P.No.10942/2013 and disposed off on 05.02.2014, wherein this Court has held that in the absence of compliance with the mandate of Sections 53 & 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, the search and seizure conducted by the Officer is vitiated, being a incurable defect. Paragraphs 4 to 12 of the said order reads as under: “4. The sole ground urged before this Court is that the police have not followed the mandatory provisions under Sections 53 and 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the K.E. Act' for brevity). The respondent - police have no jurisdiction to search any vehicle and seize any article from the vehicle without a warrant from the Magistrate. The police have not even whispered anything as to why could not take the warrant as contemplated under Section 53 of K.E. Act. The charge sheet papers disclose that the police officer has intercepted the vehicle, seized the articles, but there are no materials to state that he has made all his efforts to secure the necessary warrant but he was unable to secure the warrant, and therefore, by exercising the powers under Section 54 of K.E. Act he has searched the vehicle. In the absence of such elucidation of factual aspects in the charge sheet, it cannot be said that the search and seizure is legal and valid. If search and seizure becomes illegal and invalid, then all further proceedings are also vitiated by serious incurable defects. Therefore, the petition requires to be allowed. 5. In order to appreciate the above said contention, it is just and necessary to peruse those two provisions. 53. Power of magistrate to issue a warrant.- If a Magistrate, upon information and after such enquiry (if any) as he thinks necessary, has reason to believe that an offence under Section 32, Section 33, Section 34, Section 36 or Section 37 has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, he may issue a warrant,- (a) for the search of any place in which he has reason to believe that any intoxicant, still, utensil, implement, apparatus or materials which are used for the commission of such offence or in respect of which - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6887 WP No. 3613 of 2026 such offence has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, are kept or concealed; and (b) for the arrest of any person whom he has reason to believe to have been, to be, or to be likely to be, engaged in the commission of any such offence. 54. Power to search without warrant.- Whenever the Excise Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner or any Police Officer not below the rank of an officer-in-charge of a Police Station or any Excise Officer not below such rank as may be prescribed, has reason to believe that an offence under Section 32, Section 33, Section 34, Section 36 or Section 37 has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, and that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording the offender an opportunity of escape or of concealing evidence of the offence, he may, after recording the grounds of his belief.- (a) at any time by day or by night enter and search any place and seize anything found therein which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act; and (b) detain and search and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person found in such place whom he has reason to believe to be guilty of such offence as aforesaid. 6. 6. As per Section 54 of the K.E. Act, the Judicial Magistrate is a competent person to issue warrant, if the Magistrate is satisfied about the information and he has reason to believe that offences punishable under Sections 32, 33, 34, 36 or 37 has been, is being or likely to be, committed, then only he may issue search warrant for the search of any place in which any intoxicant, still, utensil, implement are concealed and also for arresting of any person who was involved in commission of such offence. Section 54 of the K.E. Act deals with, under what circumstances the police officer or any competent officer can make a search without a warrant. This provision abundantly clears the doubt that whenever the competent officer has reason to believe that an offence under the above said provisions are likely to be committed or committed and that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording the offender an opportunity of escape or of concealing evidence of the offence, he may, after recording the grounds of his belief he can search the said place. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6887 WP No. 3613 of 2026 7. There is no doubt that the liquor was transported in a concealed manner. As per the records it is clear that the accused persons were transporting the liquor, by concealing the same, in a vehicle. Therefore, it goes without saying that taking of search warrant is mandatory and in the absence of taking of warrant, the Officer has to record the reasons of his belief and then proceed to search the place and seize the articles. In this regard, it is also worth to note a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in- AIR (SC) - 1979 - 0 - 711 between K.L. Subbayya vs. State of Karnataka. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with similar set of facts and after discussing in detail has held that - "The Inspector who searched the car of the appellant has not recorded any of the grounds on the basis of which he had a reasonable belief that an offence under the Act was being committed before proceeding to search the car and thus the provisions of Section 54 of the K.E. Act are not at all complied with. In the said case also without obtaining a search warrant as contemplated under Section 53 of the K.E. Act and without recording the reasons as contemplated under Section 54 of the K.E. Act, the competent officer has searched the car and seized some articles. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the said proceedings are vitiated and on that ground itself accused is entitled to be acquitted. " 9. This Court had an opportunity to deal with the similar matter in Crl. P. No.4724/2012 between Sri Rajashekar v. Ulsoor Police Station. 10. In the said case also the police have registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 34 of the K.E. Act and this Court on dealing with the said provision under Sections 53 and 54 of the K.E. Act has held that in the absence of recording of the reasons the Empowered Officer does not get any jurisdiction to search and seize any articles. This Court has also relied upon another ruling reported in - - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6887 WP No. 3613 of 2026 1999(4) Kar.L.J. 302 between L. Srinivas vs. The Authorised Officer and Superintendent of Excise, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. 11. On going through the said decision, this Court has come to the conclusion that without proper compliance of Sections 53 and 54 of the K.E. Act, the search and seizure conducted by the Officer is vitiated by serious incurable defects. 12. Having looked into the legal aspects, now let me consider in this particular case whether such compliance is made or not. I have carefully perused the charge sheet papers, particularly the complaint averments and as well as the mahazar drawn by the complainant at the spot i.e., while intercepting and searching auto rickshaw of this petitioner and also seizing the liquor. In the complaint it is only stated that on 06.01.2013 at about 11'o clock the complainant received a credible information about commission of offence by accused persons and immediately he went to the spot along with panchas at 11.30 a.m. and at about 11.40 a.m. they intercepted the vehicle, searched and seized liquor from the said vehicle. The same thing has been reiterated in the complaint averments and as well as in the mahazar. Nothing is there to indicate that Officer has made any attempts to secure warrant from the Magistrate. The Police Officer, who has searched and seized the article is the Police Sub-Inspector of Sirsi Town Police. There is a Magistrate Court at Sirsi between 11.00 to 11.30 a.m. after getting the credible information, the said Police Officer has not made any attempt to go to the Court or the residence of Magistrate to secure the warrant. The reason for not securing warrant from the Magistrate is also not at all stated in the complaint or in the mahazar, as contemplated under the above said provisions of law. In the absence of such materials on record, this Court cannot give its affirmative seal for continuation of such criminal proceedings against this petitioner who has challenged the said proceedings before this Court. Under the above said circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a good case for quashing of the proceedings as prayed by him. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Consequently, all further proceedings in C.C. No.209/2013 pending on the file of I Addl. J.M.F.C., Sirsi, so far as it relates to this petitioner is concerned is quashed.” - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6887 WP No. 3613 of 2026 4. In that view of the matter, this petition also deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C.No.61/2019 pending on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Hunsur, in so far as it relates to these petitioners, stands quashed.” In the light of the judgments of the Co-ordinate Benches interpreting Section 36 of the Act, the very issue of registration of FIR without at the outset seeking permission from the hands of the learned Magistrate, is contrary to law. Therefore, on both the counts as afore- quoted, the petitions deserve to succeed. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I make the following: O R D E R (i) The Criminal Petitions are allowed. (ii) The FIR in Crime No.53 of 2022 registered before the Cubbon Park Police Station and pending before the 8th Additional Chief Metropolitan Court, Bengaluru stands quashed." 10. In the light of the law being clear, the petition deserves to succeed, however, reserving liberty to the State to take action, in accordance with law. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R [I] Writ Petition is allowed. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6887 WP No. 3613 of 2026 [II] Proceedings in Crime No.32/2026 pending on the file of the 46th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, qua the petitioner stands quashed. [III] Liberty is reserved to the State to take action in accordance with law. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1