The High Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings if the dispute involves compoundable offences under the Excise Act to prevent the abuse of process and unnecessary, protracted legal ordeals.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.467 of 2020, dated 27.12.2020, registered at Police Station Sadar Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 420 and 201 of IPC and Sections 39(1)(a) and 39(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act (for short, ‘the Act’) along with consequential proceedings pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Una.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings, as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of Sub-Inspector Anita, who alleged that on 27.12..2020, while she was on patrolling duty, she received information that truck bearing No.HP-64-9387, coming from Santoshgarh to Una side, may be carrying huge quantity of liquor without permit and as such, aforesaid truck was stopped for checking and allegedly, 402 fboxes of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (for short, ‘IMFL’), namely ‘Golden Tiger’, were being transported without any permit. Since at the time of interception, driver of the offending vehicle namely Ravi Rana wars unable to produce any permit qua the liquor, Police lodged FIR against above named driver as well as petitioner herein, proprietor of Mars Bottlers. However, within short span of time, driver Ravi Rana produCced relevant documents including permit with regard to liquor which was being transported in truck bearing No.HP-64-9387. As per permit made available by driver namely Ravi Rana, though petitioner herein had permit to transport 400 bottles of IMFL, Golden Tiger, but from truck, idetailed hereinabove, 402 boxes were recovered, meaning thereby, two boxes of IMFL, named hereinabove, were being transported illegally without any permit. It also transpired at the time of checking that though permit was only for Batch No.15, but some of the bottles kept in boxes were of Batch Nos.9, 14 and 15. In the afore background, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged against the petitioner.

3. Though after completion of investigation, Police has already presented Challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical ends, petitioner has approached this C.ourt in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR.

4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Neeraj Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, is tfhat no case much less under Section 39 of the Act is made out against the petitioner, because 400 boxes recovered from the offending vehicle were being transported on the basis of legal permit issued by the Derpartment of Excise and Taxation. Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, further submitted that though petitioner disputes factum of transportation of two boxes of IMFL without peCrmit, but even if it is presumed that two boxes were being transported without valid permit, case against the petitioner could have been compounded under Sections 66 and 67 of the Act. He further submitted that though repeatedly Department of Excise clarified to the iPolice authorities that on account of recovery of bottles of different batches, no case is made out under Section 39, but in that eventuality, petitioner is liable to be punished under Section 43 of the Act, which is triable by the Excise Department itself, but yet for no cogent and convincing reason, Police presented Challan before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, which also, despite having received clarification from the Excise Department that no case is made out under Section 39 of the Act, proceeded with the case.

5. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Addition.al Advocate General, while refuting the aforesaid claim put forth at the behest of petitioner vehemently argued tha