IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3726 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

SRI.N.D.JAYADEVAPPA S/O LATE DYAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT, R/AT FLAT NO 004, GROUND FLOOR BINDU AMULYA APARTMENT MUDDINAPALYA MAIN ROAD, ANJANANAGAR, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU 560 091.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJA SUBRAHMANYA BHAT B.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, ZONE 006, SUBRAMANYANAGAR, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU 560 023.

Digitally THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, signed by CHANDANA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, B M Location: BENGALURU - 560 001 High Court of …RESPONDENT Karnataka (BY SMT. M.M. WAHEEDA, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN NO.32/2023-24/36091E/360909 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE *32^ND A.C.M.M COURT BENGALURU CITY REGISTERED UNDER EXCISE ACT 1965 SEC.11,14,32,38A IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

"(a) Quash the FIR and Complaint in No.32/2023-

24/36091E/360909 pending on the file of *32^nd A.C.M.M., Court, Bengaluru City, registered under the Excise Act, 1965, Sec. 11, 14, 32, 38A, in so far as the petitioner is concerned to meet the ends of justice."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP the respondent-State and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent registered the impugned FIR pursuant to a complaint dated 28.03.2024 lodged against the petitioner for offences under Section 11, 14, 32 and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short "the said Act of 1965") inter alia alleging that when the petitioner was traveling in Maruthi Swift Car bearing registration No.KA-02-MA-7648, 9,000 liters of liquor was found in the said vehicle. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not carrying 9,000 liters of liquor, but 12 bottles of 750 ml. each for the purpose of a family gathering after his daughter's wedding, which was evidenced by bills of purchase, marriage card and other documents. Since the said explanation offered by the petitioner was not accepted by the respondent, who initiated the impugned proceedings, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. A perusal of the impugned FIR and complaint will indicate that the petitioner is alleged to have been carrying 9,000 liters of liquor in the aforesaid vehicle at the time of its interception and confiscation; however, the material on record comprising of the seizure mahazar, statements of witnesses, list of articles confiscated etc., clearly establishes that the total extent of liquor seized was only 9 liters comprising of 12 bottles having 750 ml. each and not 9,000 liters as falsely alleged in the complaint and FIR. Further, the other documents produced by the petitioner including the wedding invitation, bills for having purchased 12 bottles of liquor by the petitioner etc., would cumulatively establish that the petitioner was not guilty of the offences alleged against him and so long as the material on record disclosed that the petitioner was carrying the subject liquor after purchasing the same with valid bills, it could not have been said that the petitioner was guilty of any of the offences alleged against him. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law, warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

6. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed (ii) The impugned