Karnataka High Court
Sri. Vishal Sharma vs State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6558
CRL.P No. 4087 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4087 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. VISHAL SHARMA,
S/O SRI. AMRISH SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
O/A NO.24, UNIT NO.204,
COMET BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR,
UB CITY, VITTAL MALYA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. M/S. AVANT GARDE HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,
INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
O/A NO. 24, UNIT NO.204, 2ND FLOOR,
2ND FLOOR, UB CITY, VITTAL MALYA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
signed by SRI. ASHWIN KUMAR G P.
KAVYA R
...PETITIONERS
Location: High
Court of (BY SRI. BINU M., ADVOCATE)
Karnataka
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
SAMPANGI RAM NAGARA P.S,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.THEJESH P., HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6558
CRL.P No. 4087 of 2024
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 IN FIR
NO.35/2023-24/76IE2/763906 REGISTERED BY THE
SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR EXCISE BUD 04 WHICH IS HEREWITH
MARKED AS ANNEXURE A FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 15, 34, 36,
38(a) AND 43 OF THE KARNATAKA EXCISE AT AND RULE 18 OF
THE KARNATAKA EXCISE (GENERAL CONDITIONS OF LICENSE)
RULES WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDL.C.M.M
COURT AT BENGALURU.
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
1. In this petition, the petitioners seek for the following relief:
"To allow this Petition and quash the FIR against the
petitioner No.1 and 2 in FIR no.35/2023-24/76ie2/763906
registered by the Sampangirama Nagar Excise BUD 04 which is
herewith marked as ANNEXURE - A, for the offence punishable
under Section 15, 34, 36, 38(A) and 43 of The Karnataka Excise
Act and Rule 18 of The Karnataka Excise (General Conditions of
License) Rules, 1967 which is pending on the file of the IX
Addl..C.M.M Court, at Bengaluru and pass such other order/s as
deemed fit, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in
the interest of justice.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High
Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that on
05.03.2024, the respondent conducted a raid of the petitioner's Bar
NC: 2025:KHC:6558
& Restaurant under the name and style 'Badmash Bar &
Restaurant', pursuant to which, one bottle of 750 ML 100 Pipers
Whiskey sealed bottle labeled as 'for sale to defense personnel
only', was seized, pursuant to which, FIR No.35/2023-
24/76IE2/763906 was registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 15, 34, 36, 38(A) and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act,
1965 and Rule 18 of the Karnataka Excise (General Conditions of
License) Rules, 1967. It was alleged that the petitioners were not
entitled to store or sell the aforesaid liquor meant for sale only to
defence personnel and consequently, the petitioners were liable for
the aforesaid offences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the
judgment of this Court in the case of SHIVA KUMAR VS. THE STATE
OF KARNATAKA & ANR., passed in Crl.P.No.5879/2024 dated
21.01.2025, in order to contend that in the absence of reasons to
believe to be recorded in writing as contemplated under Section 54
of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, which would dispense with the
requirement of obtaining a warrant prior to conducting a raid/search
it was impermissible for the respondent to conduct a raid/search
NC: 2025:KHC:6558
and consequently all further proceedings in pursuance of the same,
including the impugned FIR, deserves to be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits
that the petitioners were guilty of the alleged offences and as such,
there is no merit in the petition and is liable to be dismissed.
6. Perusal of the material on record in the instant case will indicate
that prior to the search and seizure conducted on 05.03.2024, the
respondent did not choose to record any reasons in writing to
believe as to why, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is
necessary to dispense with obtaining of search warrant prior to the
impugned search. In identical circumstances, in the case of SHIVA
KUMAR (SUPRA), this Court held as under:
"6. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that
before conducting the impugned search and seizure, whereby, the
alleged liquor bottles from the petitioner were seized, the
respondents had not obtained any search warrant; so also,
necessary reasons to believe had not been recorded in writing so
as to dispense with the obtaining of search warrant as mandatorily
required under Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act.
7. xxx
8. As is clear from the aforesaid judgments of this Court,
compliance of provisions contained under Section 54 of the
Karnataka Excise Act is mandatory and non-compliance thereof
and non-obtaining of a search warrant prior to the search and
seizure would vitiate the impugned F.I.R., charge sheet and all
further proceedings pursuant thereto, deserves to be quashed."
NC: 2025:KHC:6558
7. In view of the above, in the absence of any reasons to believe to
be recorded in writing as to why obtaining of a search warrant was
not required and the same could be dispensed with as mandatory
requirement under Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, I
am of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings as
against the petitioners, deserves to be quashed.
8. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is hereby allowed.
The impugned proceedings in FIR No.35/2023-
24/76IE2/763906 dated 06.03.2024, registered by the
Sampangiramana Nagar Excise BUD 04, against the
petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections
15, 34, 36, 38(A) and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act
and Rule 18 of the Karnataka Excise (General
Conditions of License) Rules, 1967, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
RD
