IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-49656-2024 (O&M)

Reserved on : 10.02.2026 Pronounced on : 12.02.2026 Virender @Birender Singh ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by : Mr. Akash Vashisth, Advocate and Mr. Akinchan Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG Haryana.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. This petition, under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed for quashing of FIR No.143 dated 23.04.2022, under Section 72-C(b) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana Amendment Bill, 2020), Police Station Sadar Mahendergarh, District Mahendergarh.

2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from the record are that the FIR of the case was lodged in abovementioned Police Station on a report of Sub- Inspector Rajender Kumar. It was reported by the abovenamed police officer that on that day when he along with SPO Pawan No.104 and Constable Anil Kumar No.767 was on patrolling duty in official vehicle, he spotted two persons, who were consuming liquor with the help of half bottle at a public place. According to abovenamed police officer, the abovesaid persons when spotted the police party, threw the bottle on the road, and broke the same. It was further reported that by consuming liquor at public place, they had committed an offence under Section 72(C)(b) of the Haryana Excise Act

2020 and therefore, both the abovesaid persons were over-powered.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned report, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation the petitioner was formally arrested and thereafter, further investigation was initiated.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that in the present case, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co- accused was consuming liquor at a public place. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the abovementioned act has been described as an offence under Section 72(C)(b) and that as per Section 72C(c)(2) the sentence prescribed for the abovementioned offence is imprisonment up to three months and fine up to Rs.10,000/-.

6. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the abovementioned offence is a non-cognizable offence and, therefore, firstly without warrant the police officer was not entitled to arrest the petitioner and secondly, without permission of the Court, investigation in this case could not be undertaken. While claiming that arrest of the petitioner in the present case is illegal and that filing of FIR is barred, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR in question being an abuse of process of law deserves to be quashed.

7. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned argument. While referring to the reply filed by the State, it has been contended by learned State Counsel that the present petition has been filed on false grounds and that whatever the grounds have been taken in the present petition the same should be taken before the learned trial Court at the time of framing of charge.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

9. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused was consuming liquor at a public place. The abovementioned act of the petitioner & his co-accused, it amounts to an offence under Section 72(C)(b) of the Punjab Excise (Haryana Amendment) Act, 2020. The abovementioned Section defines that ‘whoever, in contravention of this Act or the rules, notification or order made thereunder, consumes liquor in public place and creates nuisance shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months and fine which may extend to Rs.10,000/-’.

10. With regard to controversy involved in this case, the provisions of Section 7