Quashing of FIR under IPC and Excise Act requires a prima facie case to avoid misuse of legal processes; non-existence of cheating and forgery is essential for quashing allegations.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Present petition is being filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR registered in Kochhodamn P.S. Case No. 152 of 2022 dated 23.06.2022, District Kishanganj and further proceedings thereof against petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and under Sections 30(a), 31, 32, 36, 41(i) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. Presently pending before the court of learned Special Excise Court cum Additional District Judge -II, Kishanganj.

3. Case of prosecution in brief, speaks that the informant, who is posted as SHO of P.S. Kochhodamn, District- Kishanganj, Bihar on 23.06.2022, upon receiving a secret information from liquor prohibition team, Patna, informed to his senior officials wherafter he along with his team started checking vehicles at Moharmari and at about 10.00 hours intercepted a saffron color ten wheelers “Tata Mahindra” and overpowered the driver and co-driver, who upon enquiry revealed their name as Devnath Prajapati and Sittu Ram, respectively. In the presence of eyewitnesses namely, Lal Harijan Deramari and Abid Khan informant along with his team searched the aforesaid ten-wheeler Tata Mahindra truck, bearing registration no. CG04JD4933 and found english liquor of brand Royal-son Gold whisky total quantity of 7127.280 liters, which was seized. Thereafter, on inquiry driver claimed that they work for Sunil Bhardwaj, owner of M/s Shiva enterprises Arunachal Pradesh.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is the director of M/s KALA AMB Distillery & Brewery Pvt. Ltd., a registered company under Companies Act, 2013, engaged in manufacturing and marketing alcoholic beverages, located in Solan, Himachal Pradesh. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s company entered into a lawful manufacturing agreement with M/s Pristine Distilleries, a proprietorship firm based in Arunachal Pradesh. Products manufactured by the petitioner’s company was under lawful authority, while the trademark rights are owned by M/s Pristine Distilleries and its associates, which clearly establishes that the petitioner’s company acts solely as a manufacturer, with no direct control over trademark ownership or external marketing rights. It is further pointed out by learned counsel that the whisky, in issue, are legally registered for export to states like Goa and Chandigarh, and for marketing in Arunachal Pradesh, under Rule 245 of the Arunachal Pradesh Excise Rules, 1994 and the sources of supply for these brands are clearly identified as M/s Pristine Distilleries, Hollongi. Further for exporting liquor, the petitioner’s partner firm, M/s Pristine Distilleries, was required to obtain an export permit from the office of the Commissioner, Tax & Excise, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh and upon obtaining this permit, the partner firm then secures the import permit from the respective importing state, following the payment of requisite excise duties. The consignment is only dispatched post verification by the Tax & Excise Department and the route is pre-determined by the Tax & Excise Department, passing through multiple states including Assam, Bengal, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra and this meticulous regulatory oversight further underscores the transparency of the petitioner’s business operations. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and the allegations against the pe