IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.3595 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SHRI SHYAM SUNDAR .K AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O KESHVARJ .K CREDIT MANAGER IN VIVANTA BY TAJ (LICENSE HOLDER COMPANY)

OFFICE AT NO 2275, TUMKUR ROAD YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU-560 022.

2. PRASANNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O NANJANDE GOWDA BAR TENDER IN VIVANTA BY TAJ (LICENSE HOLDER COMPANY)

OFFICE AT NO 2275, TUMKUR ROAD YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU-560 022.

Digitally signed by

3. RAJEEV KHANNA R HEMALATHA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS Location: High Court of S/O SATHYAPRAKASH KHANNA Karnataka DIRECTOR IN VIVANTA BY TAJ (LICENSE HOLDER COMPANY)

OFFICE AT NO. 2275, TUMKUR ROAD YESHWANTHPURA BENGALURU-560 022.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KIRAN .J, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EXCISE POLICE NANDINI LAYOUT RANGE SUB-DIVISION - 02 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 096.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING FOR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE FIR NO. 23/2024-25/3603IE/360308 DATED 30.01.2025 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 14, 15, 32, 36, 38(A) AND 43 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND ALONG WITH CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS (ANNEXURE-A).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioners have challenged the registration of the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 14, 15, 32, 36, 38(A), and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. 2. The respondent registered the First Information Report stating that while on beat duty, the complainant, along with his staff, conducted an inspection of the premises of Taj Vivanta Hotel, which was issued a CL-6A license to serve liquor to its customers. Based on credible information received, it was found that the petitioner had failed to maintain the account books as required under the terms of the license and the approved blueprint. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the offences alleged are cognizable in nature, and therefore, prior to conducting any investigation, the Excise Police were mandatorily required to either register an FIR or, in exigent circumstances, record the information received in the Station House Diary. It is further contended that the search and seizure was carried out without obtaining a warrant, in violation of the mandatory requirements under Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act.

4. In response, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that the petitioners had admittedly failed to maintain the account books and were not conducting the business in accordance with the approved blueprint. Therefore, the allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offences and warrant investigation. It was further submitted that the veracity of the allegations cannot be assessed at this preliminary stage and sought dismissal of the petition.

5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, the following observations are made:

a. Admittedly, the offences alleged are cognizable in nature. Therefore, the respondent, having received credible information and prior to conducting investigation, was required to register an FIR or, in the event of exigency, record the reasons in writing in the Station House Diary as mandated under law. b. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in similar circumstances, relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, held that an investigation conducted without registering an FIR, even on credible information, vitiates the entire proceedings. In the instant case, there is no material to indicate that the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) was followed.

6. Section 173 of the BNSS, 2023, which correspo