Dismissed

K Thirumala S/O K. Honnurappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2023WP/102340/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR under the Karnataka Excise Act. The court held that the prima facie allegations in the FIR reveal offences and that objections regarding inspection procedures under Section 54 can only be raised after the final report is filed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filing to quash the First Information Report was dismissed.

K Thirumala S/O K. Honnurappa Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 102340 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 102340 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

K. THIRUMALA S/O K. HONNURAPPA, AGE. 43 YEARS, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING OF NO.MIG-II/21, WARD NO.31 OPP. VIYAN VIDYALAYA SCHOOL, CANATONMENT, BALLARI-583101.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. G.K. BHAT, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. SUDHA D., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, RANGE-I, BALLARI-581101.

¶14

… RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M. AAG FOR SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP)

¶16

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI Date: 2023.12.07 11:57:06 +0530

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-B IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION REPORT NO.50/2022-23/0804IE/080404 DATED 31.03.2023 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT INSPECTOR OF EXCISE AND AS REPORTED TO THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 21.11.2023 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WP No. 102340 of 2023

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This writ petition is filed to quash FIR No.50/202223/0804IE/080404 dated 31.03.2023 registered for offences punishable under Section 36 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the act’, for brevity)and Rule 3(7)(b) of the Karnataka

¶23

Excise(Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules,1968.

¶24

As per averments of first information on 30.03.2023 at about 10.00P.M. the complainant-Excise Officer of range-1, Ballari along with the Assistant Commissioner and Tahsildar visited the Vaishali Lodging and boarding i.e. K.Tirumala CL-7 of petitioner and found of 16 rooms were not occupied and register was entered upto 31.01.2023. The customers were consuming liquor and supplier namely Hagalurappa was serving liquor to outside customers and on enquiry with customers they told that they have purchased 1) 180ml O.T. whiskey, 2)180ml B.P. whiskey 3) 90ml I.B whiskey 4) 90 ml O.T whiskey and 04 plastic glasses and paid Rs.385/- and they

¶25

¶26

WP No. 102340 of 2023

¶27

also disclosed their names. They also found that new door was affixed to the bar counter.

¶28

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

¶29

relied on the decision in the case of the K.L. Subbayya Vs

¶30

State of Karnataka¹ would submits that search conducted by an officer, without recording of the grounds for his belief that an offence under the Act was likely or being committed would vitiate entire proceedings and investigation of first information would be abuse of process

¶31

of law. He further contended that averments of first information accepted at their face value do not constitute offences alleged against petitioner.

¶32

Learned AGA would submit that under Section 51 of the Act, the Excise Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner or any Excise Officer not below such rank as may be prescribed or any Police Officer duly empowered to enter and inspect license premises. In exercise of that power, the complainant has entered the license premises and found violation of rules and commission of offence

¶33

1 (1979) 2 SCC 115

¶34

¶35

WP No. 102340 of 2023

¶36

under Section 36 of the Act. There was neither search nor seizure of liquor. In the circumstances, Section 54 of the Act is not attracted.

¶37

This petition is filed to quash the first information, which would prima facie reveal the aforestated offences. At this stage, it is not possible to suspect the contents of first information. It is not possible to take into consideration the probable defence that may be available to the petitioner during trial. At this stage, it is not possible to hold that there was violation of the provisions of Section 54 of the Act. Such contention can be raised only after final report is filed against petitioner. Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of the Smt. Mahananda Vs State of Karnataka² considering inspection of license premises and registration of the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 13, 14, 32 and 38A of the Act has dismissed the petition seeking quash of the first information has observed as under:

¶38

“6. This petition is filed to quash the first information, which would prima facie reveal the aforesaid

¶39

2 2012 SCC Online Kar5 9044

¶40

¶41

WP No. 102340 of 2023

¶42

offences. At this stage, it is not possible to suspect the contents of first information. It is not possible to take into consideration the probable defence that may be available to petitioner during trial. At this stage, it is not possible to hold that there was violation of the provisions of Section 54 of the Act. Such contention can be raised only after final report is filed against petitioner.”

¶43

6. In view of the above, I do not find any grounds

¶44

to quash the first information. The petition is dismissed

¶45

with the above observations.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

DSP CT:BCK List No.:

K Thirumala S/O K. Honnurappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Thirumala S/O K. Honnurappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mahadev Govind Redekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Rangappa S/O Gangappa Badiger Vs the State

Rehamath Ali S S/O Late Baba Pakruddin Sab Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Veerayya S/O Veerabasayya Kochalapurmath Vs Balakrishna T. Magajikondi

Prakash S/O Kallappa Alias Kallangouda Bikkangoudra Vs the State of Karnataka

Ayub S/O Sanna Hasansab Naddimulla Vs the State of Karnataka