The Court emphasized the importance of accepting FIR allegations as true at the quashing stage and addressing disputed questions of fact during trial.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional General no. 3 for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred this writ application for quashing the FIR instituted vide Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 123 of 2021 dated 13.3.2021 registered under sections 272, 273 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, for directing the respondents to release the tanker lorry bearing registration no. NL01K9511 along with 2500 litres of extra neutral alcohol (‘ENA’ in short) loaded on it seized in connection with Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 123 of 2021 and to pass other order or orders as the Court may deem fit in the facts of the case.

3. The prosecution case based on the self statement of Ashwani Kumar, Police Inspector-cum-SHO, Kishanganj recorded on 13.3.2021 at 10 am is that at 7.15 am the same morning secret information was received that a tanker lorry vehicle bearing registration no. NL01K9511 carrying spirit for preparation of liquor was going towards Purnia. Giving information to the Senior Police Officers the informant reached the Bir Kunwar Bus Stand at Kishanganj at about 9.45 am. He saw the tanker lorry bearing registration no. NL01 K9511 and signaled the driver to stop. On inquiry from the driver of the vehicle namely Md. Mannan, he disclosed that there was a total of 25000 litres of spirit in the tanker lorry meant for preparation of liquor. He was carrying the same from Bhutan and was taking the same to Muzaffarpur. No documents were produced by the driver. It is stated that on inquiry it transpired that the digital lock on the vehicle was open. The informant states that on the digital lock on the same being open, it clearly showed the intention of the owner of the tanker lorry that he intended to sell the same in the State of Bihar. The same was a cognizable offence in view of the complete prohibition of liquor in the State of Bihar. The driver of the vehicle was arrested and a seizure list prepared. On the basis of the self statement of the informant FIR being Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 123 of 2021 was registered on 13.3.2021 under sections 272, 273 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

4. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is the owner of the tanker lorry which was hired for transportation of 25000 litres of ENA from Bhutan Centennial Distillery, an undertaking of the Royal Government of Bhutan to M/s. Bottlers, Una, Himachal Pradesh. The statutory permit, pass and invoice on the strength of which the consignment of ENA was being transported have been brought on record as annexures to the writ petition. The attached permit would reveal that the consignment was loaded on 11.3.2021 at Gelephbu, Bhutan and in view of the prohibition of consuming liquor in the State of Bihar a long route was prescribed intentionally avoiding the State of Bihar. However, the vehicle could not avoid the chicken neck area in the district of Kishanganj in the State of Bihar while crossing Baro Bisha in West Bengal and there is no alternate route for the same. It is further stated that as the vehicle was seized in the morning of 13.3.2021 and a digital lock had been affixed by the government of West Bengal, there was neither requirement to affix another lock and it was not possible to remove the affixed digital lock as it was to be removed in Asansol, West Bengal. It is stated that when the vehicle entered Kishanganj in Bihar the agent appointed by the State of Bihar asked the driver to remove the digital lock of West Bengal and to affix his digital lock to which the driver did not agree and he stated that since the digital lock was already affixed, it cannot be removed by him. The agent complained to the SHO, Kishanganj Police Station who making false and frivolous allegations lodged the FIR.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the co