Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
Ashok G Nijagannavar, J.
Basavraj - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 100827 of 2019, 100829 of 2019, 100830 of 2019
Decided On : 02-07-2020
Karnataka Excise Act - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Section 32, 34, 36, 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and Section 188 of IPC - The court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused based on the grounds of procedural irregularities and illegal conduct of investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings against them on the grounds of being falsely implicated, vague allegations, and non-compliance with mandatory provisions under Section 154 of Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders of cognizance were passed mechanically in a printed proforma, not in accordance with law. It also held that the excise officials conducted the raid without registering the FIR, rendering the proceedings untenable.
Issues: Validity of criminal proceedings, procedural irregularities, compliance with Section 154 of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that taking cognizance of an offense is a judicial act requiring application of mind, and the procedure under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. must be followed. It also highlighted the mandatory nature of FIR registration and its importance in ensuring consistent investigation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal petitions and quashed the proceedings against the accused under the Karnataka Excise Act.
JUDGMENT
Ashok G Nijagannavar, J. - The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.100827 of 2019 is arrayed as accused No.2 in C.C.No.1923 of 2017 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikodi for the offences punishable under Section 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and Section 188 of IPC.
2. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.100829 of 2019 is arrayed as accused No.3 in C.C.No.832 of 2016 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikodi for the offence punishable under Section 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act.
3. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.100830 of 2019 is arrayed as accused No.5 in C.C.No.1448 of 2018 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Chikodi for the offence punishable under Sections 32, 34, 36 and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise.
4. In all the aforesaid criminal petitions the grounds of revision are similar. The petitioners have sought for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against them on the following grounds :
(a) The petitioners are falsely implicated and the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners merely on the information said to have been disclosed by the other accused persons who have been apprehended while conducting the raid.
(b) These petitioners have been accused of committing the alleged offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, but they were not caught/ arrested while selling the liquor at the spot.
(c) The allegations made in the complaint and FIR are vague and there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners.
(d) The complainant/respondent has not at all followed the mandatory provisions under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. The initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners suffers from serious infirmities.
(e) In the event of continuation of proceedings they will be put to great hardship and injustice.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP-State.
6. The main grounds urged for quashing the further proceedings in C.C.Nos.1923 of 2017, 832 of 2016 and 1448 of 2018 against the petitioners are that,
[I] The order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance is not in accordance with law.
(II) The procedure prescribed under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is not fol lowed, thus the entire proceedings stands vitiated.
7. In support of the said contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the following decisions.
(i) State of Haryana and Others Vs. CH.Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992) AIR SC 604 .
(ii ) Raj iv Thapar & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) Supp AIR SC 1056 .
( iii ) K.Ramachandra reddy Vs. State of Karnataka by the Station House Officer & Another, (2013) 1 KCCR 334 .
( iv) Smt. Shashikala W/o. Annasaheb Jol le Vs. The State of Karnataka, Crl .P. No.101186/2018.
(v) Shri . Girishchandra S/o. Veerbhadrayya Hiremath and another Vs. The State by Lokayukta, (2013) ILR(Kar) 983 .
(vi ) Somashekhrappa S/o. Late Chowdappa Vs. The State of Karnataka by Lokayukta,2013 STPL 10533 Karnataka.
(vii ) H.Ganga Setty and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka and another, Crl .P.No. 5802/2016.
(viii ) Vikas Kumar @ Vikas S/o Sukhalal Jain Vs. The State of Karnataka, Crl .P.No.4476/2018.
( ix) State of M.P. Vs. Mukesh and Others, (2006) 13 SCC 197 .
(x) Sasi Vs. State of Kerala, (2000) 10 SCC 360 .
(xi ) Ram Parkash Vs. State of Punjab, (1959) AIR SC 1 .
8. Per Contra, the learned HCGP submitted that the defects pointed out by the learned counsel are not glaring or material defects. Thus, there are no valid grounds for quashing the proceedings.
9. It is well settled that, the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised by the High Court, inter alia to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise secure the ends of justice. When the Criminal proceedings are initiated based on the illicit material collected on search and arrest which are per-se illegal and vitiated not only a conviction and sentence passed on such m
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
