- 1 -
WP No. 101830 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 101830 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
B.NAGAVENI W/O B.NAGARAJA,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O NO.327 DURUGAMMA SEDA BHAVI BADAVANE
SHIVAPURA KUDLIGI,
DIST. BALLARI-583135,
AS PER CHARGE SHEET
AT DOOR NO.1043 WARD NO.2 HALALU VILLAGE,
TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.
&PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH HIREHADAGALI POLICE STATION,
DISTRICT BALLARI-5831040,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH-580011.
&RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION
482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, AND
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.73/2020 ON THE FILE
OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT
Digitally
signed by
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL
Location:
DHARWAD
- 2 -
WP No. 101830 of 2022
HADAGALI (CRIME NO.198/2018 OF HIREHADAGALI POLICE
STATION) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 32 AND 34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, VIDE
ANNEXURE-C, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
Heard leaned counsel, Sri Srinivas B.Naik for the
petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent-State.
2.
This petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. with the following prayer.
<To issue a writ of certiorari, and quash the
charge sheet in C.C.No.73/2020 on the file of
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court
Hadagali (Crime No.198/2018 of Hirehadagali
Police
Station)
registered
for
the
offence
punishable under Section 32 and 34 of Karnataka
Excise Act, vide Annexure-C, in the interest of
justice and equity.=
3.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
Petitioner has been charge sheeted for the offence
punishable under Section 32 and 34 of the Karnataka
- 3 -
Excise Act, 1965 and summons have been issued and the
same is under challenge. The gist of the complaint
averments reveal that when the complainant was on duty,
he received credible information as to illegal selling of
liquor near Mallige Dhaba. On credible information, head
of the raid party along with panch witnesses went to the
spot and were on watch and on confirmation, raided and
captured the person who was indulged in selling of the
liquor sachets illegally and he is arraigned as accused No.2
in the charge sheet. Further, the police investigated and
based on the information collected by the police, accused
No.1 and 3 have also been arraigned as additional accused
in the case and they have been charge sheeted. The
action of the police is challenged in the present petition.
4.
Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition,
Sri Srinivas B.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently contended that in the absence of any
incriminatory materials found against accused No.2, she
- 4 -
has been falsely implicated by the police in order to harass
her and therefore, sought for allowing the petition.
5.
Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader submits that, in the charge sheet materials
necessary
information
has
been
gathered
by
the
investigating agency to establish nexus between the
petitioner and the incident and therefore, sought for
dismissal of the petition.
6.
Perused the material on record meticulously, in
the light of rival contentions of the parties.
7.
Admittedly on the day of the raid, the police
were only able to catch accused No.2, where she was
found selling the liquor sachets kept in bag. Subsequent
thereto, the police investigated the matter and filed
charge sheet against the present petitioner also. The
charge sheet materials do not indicate that, the liquor
sachets seized by the head of the raid party on the date of
- 5 -
raid were in fact supplied by accused. No other material is
forthcoming so as to proceed against the petitioner.
8.
The investigation agency has not collected any
material to establish that the sold liquor packets are
actually purchased from petitioner9s shop or belongs to
petitioner. Under such circumstances, in the absence of
nexus, criminal action is impermissible.
9.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed
reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court dated 02.07.2020 passed in Crl.P.No.100827/2019
and connected matters. In the said case, Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court has referred to other judgments of Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in paragraph Nos.10, 11 and
13 of its judgment. For ready reference paragraph Nos.10,
11 and 13 are extracted hereunder.
<10. In a decision reported in (2013) 1
KCCR 334 case of K.Ramachandra Reddy Vs.
State of Karnataka by the Station House
Officer & Another, it is observed as under:
- 6 -
"23. The position in law will have to be
referred to at this juncture. This Court, in the
case M/s. Vijaya Bank Vs. State by the Labour
Enforcement Officer, reported in ILR 2000
Karnataka
4773,
has
held
that
taking
cognizance of an offence being a judicial act
after
application
of
kind,
the
Magistrate
Proforma" should in which not even use the
"printed words "Cognizance is taken, are also
printed or typed."
11.
Having regard to the submission made
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.