Back
Striker Beverages' : Quashes Excise FIR, Imposes Rs 2 Lakh Cost
In a significant ruling, the has quashed an FIR registered under against and another, for serving liquor without a valid permit during a soft launch party at in . Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over the matter, observed that the omission to obtain a daily permit for the event on , was a sheer with . However, the court imposed a cost of Rs 2 lakh, to be deposited equally with the Staff Welfare Fund and the Bar Association Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund.
A Soft Launch, a Missing Permit, and an FIR
The case stemmed from a raid conducted on , at in , Chanakyapuri, following secret information that liquor was being served without a valid license. During the raid, which coincided with a soft launch party attended by around 40–50 people, authorities recovered large quantities of used and sealed liquor bottles. The owner, Ankit Khilwani, and manager, Malay Kumar Rout, were arrested on the spot and later released on bail.
Investigation revealed that Striker Beverages, the petitioner company, had applied for three P-10A permits on —one for an event on at for 750 guests, and two for events on at and . Critically, no permit was applied for September 11, the date of the soft launch. A chargesheet under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act was filed on , prompting the company to seek quashing of the FIR under .
or Genuine Mistake? Court Weighs In
The petitioners argued that the absence of a permit for September 11 was an . They had intended to apply for a daily permit for that date but mistakenly omitted it while applying for the other dates. Notably, the company already held a valid yearly license for , issued on , and valid until . They further highlighted that they had already paid 50% of the penalty—amounting to Rs 10,62,937—pursuant to a order from the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. The Additional Public Prosecutor, after reviewing the facts, had no objection to the quashing.
Justice Banerjee found the explanation credible. The judgment noted: “What entails therefrom is that there is sheer mistaken and inadvertent (typographical) error on their part with as they actually never missed out on applying for the valid license for the soft launch party on .” The court also underscored the petitioners’ conduct in paying the penalty, stating: “Moreover, the petitioners have already paid 50% penalty amounting to Rs.10,62,937/- pursuant to the order dated passed by the Deputy Commissioner/ Licensing Authority, also shows their conduct.”
Justice with a Price Tag: Rs 2 Lakh Cost Imposed
While quashing FIR No.100/2019 and all proceedings emanating from it, the court made the relief conditional. The petitioners must deposit Rs 1 lakh with the Staff Welfare Fund and another Rs 1 lakh with the Bar Association Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund within two weeks. Proof of deposit must be submitted within a week thereafter; failure to comply will result in the matter being listed again. With this, the petition was disposed of.
The ruling underscores the judiciary's willingness to correct genuine in compliance with regulatory laws, especially when the accused has demonstrated by voluntarily paying penalties and when the prosecution raises no objection.
