Criminal proceedings quashed due to improper FIR registration process, establishing mandatory requirement for cognizable offences.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

1. Petitioner is before this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.209 of 2023 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi arising out of Crime No.80/2022-23/0605IE/060505 registered for offences punishable under Sections 14 , 15, 32(1), 38(A) and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 by the Inspector of Excise, Bagalkote Sub Division.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that raid was conducted in the present case and the contraband articles were seized under a panchanama, even without registration of an FIR. The same is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. reported in (2012)4 SCC 1 Therefore, the impugned criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed on the said short ground.

4. Learned HCGP on the other hand submits that after receipt of credible information, the first informant has immediately gone to the spot of crime in order to prevent the accused from escaping from the spot of crime. The contraband articles which were found in the house of the accused were seized and thereafter FIR has been registered, which cannot be found fault with. She submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.102043 of 2024 disposed of on 25.09.2024 in similar circumstances has refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 . Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.

5. FIR in the present case has been undisputedly registered for cognizable offences. In the case of Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. reported in (2012)4 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that registration of the FIR is mandatory, if the information discloses commission of cognizable offences and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such a situation, but if the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, but indicate the necessity of an enquiry, then a preliminary enquiry may be conducted, only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not, and in case if it is disclosed that cognizable offence is committed, then FIR must be registered. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if the cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against police officers who do not register FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

6. In the case on hand, information was received by the first informant when he was in his office on 05.05.2023 at about 09.15 p.m. Thereafter, he had summoned the panchas to his office and had proceeded to the house of the petitioner in which the petitioner allegedly had stocked liquor illegally. The allegation found in the first information would go to show a clear case for cognizable offence was made out, and since the first informant was in his office, he ought to have registered an FIR in compliance of Section 15 4 of Cr.P.C. before proceeding further. The law in this regard, as clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra). In the case of Shri.Manjunath, credible information was received by the Sub Inspector of Excise, while he was on patrolling duty, and having regard to the facts and circumstance of the said case, it has been held in the said case that no error or fault can be found in the procedure adopted by the officer who had received the credible information. In the said case, it is observed that the excise officer had received