Karnataka High Court
Krishnaiah G J vs State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:37168
CRL.P No. 9160 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9160 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNAIAH .G.J
S/O JAVAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O NO 965, 3RD CROSS
11TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560072.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE
KENGERI SUB DIVISION
R/P BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally signed
by AL BHAGYA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BENGALURU- 560001.
KARNATAKA
2. MURALI .J
S/O JAYARAM
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S.S.T. VEHICLE CHECKING
POINT HEAD, MUDDINA PALYA MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560091.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:37168
CRL.P No. 9160 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR NO. 81/2023 AND
CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.20160/2023 REGISTERED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT POLICE, THE SAME IS PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE VI ACJM BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is by the accused seeking
quashing of the FIR in Crime No.81/2023 and consequent
charge sheet filed in C.C.No.20160/2023 for the offence
punishable under Sections 14 and 34 of the Karnataka
Excise Act, 1965.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before
respondent No.1 on 10.04.2023, alleging that during the
Assembly Election Code of Conduct, while he was deputed
for election duty near the Muddina Palya SST vehicle-
checking point, at about 8.00 p.m., a Maruti Vitara
Brezza bearing registration No.KA-52-M-7376 approached
NC: 2025:KHC:37168
HC-KAR
from the side of Deepa Complex. Respondent No.2
stopped the vehicle and, on inspection, found five bottles
of Silver Cup Brandy (750 ml each). On being questioned,
the accused was unable to produce any permit or
authorization for possession of the said liquor.
Consequently, respondent No.2 secured independent
panch witnesses, conducted a search of the vehicle, and
seized the liquor. He thereafter submitted a written
complaint to respondent No.1/police, leading to
registration of NCR No.94/2023. Upon registration of the
NCR, respondent No.1 approached the jurisdictional
Magistrate seeking permission and thereafter registered
an FIR dated 11.04.2023 for the offence punishable
under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
3. After completing the investigation, the
Investigating Officer laid a charge sheet. The present
petition is filed by the accused challenging the very
initiation of criminal proceedings, contending that the FIR
was registered in respect of a non-cognizable offence
NC: 2025:KHC:37168
HC-KAR
without obtaining prior and valid permission from the
jurisdictional Magistrate. Reliance is placed on the
judgments of a Coordinate Bench reported in (2018) 1
AKR 776 and ILR 2021 Kar 1545.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating
the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the
question is no longer res integra, inasmuch as this Court
has consistently held that FIRs registered in respect of
non-cognizable offences, without securing the Magistrate's
permission as mandated under law, are unsustainable and
liable to be quashed.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader, supporting the prosecution, places reliance on the
order sheet maintained in Crime No.81/2023, to contend
that the requisite permission of the jurisdictional
Magistrate had, in fact, been obtained before registration
of the FIR, and therefore, the filing of the charge sheet is
justified.
NC: 2025:KHC:37168
HC-KAR
6. The primary allegations levelled against the
accused, even if accepted at their face value, would
disclose the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 14 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.
Upon receipt of the complaint from respondent No.2, the
jurisdictional Police Officer, without following the
mandatory procedure contemplated under law, proceeded
to register an FIR straightaway. Only thereafter was
permission sought from the jurisdictional Magistrate to
investigate the matter.
7. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer
to Section 155(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
which stipulates that in the case of a non-cognizable
offence, the police may investigate the same only "under
the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or
commit the case for trial." The requirement of obtaining
prior permission from the Magistrate is not a mere
formality but a mandatory safeguard built into the statute
to protect individuals from unwarranted prosecution in
NC: 2025:KHC:37168
HC-KAR
non-cognizable cases. The provision cannot be diluted or
treated as a mere directive to be complied with at a later
stage.
8. In the present case, though the FIR has been
ostensibly registered for an offence under Section 98 of
the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, the factual allegations
clearly attract the provisions of Sections 14 and 34 of the
Karnataka Excise Act. The offences under both enactments
are classified as non-cognizable. Consequently, no criminal
trial based on a police report can be sustained unless the
procedure prescribed under Section 155(3) Cr.P.C. is
scrupulously followed. The law envisages that the
concerned officer must first place a written complaint
before the jurisdictional Magistrate; it is only upon the
Magistrate passing an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
or otherwise authorising investigation that the police
acquire jurisdiction to investigate such non-cognizable
offences.
NC: 2025:KHC:37168
HC-KAR
9. The legal position in this regard stands well
settled by a catena of decisions, including the judgments
of this Court reported in (2018) 1 AKR 776 and ILR 2021
Kar 1545. These authorities categorically hold that
offences falling either under Sections 14 and 34 of the
Karnataka Excise Act or under Section 98 of the Karnataka
Police Act are non-cognizable in nature, and investigation
into such offences can be undertaken only after securing
an express order of the jurisdictional Magistrate. Any
investigation initiated without strict adherence to the
mandate of Section 155(3) Cr.P.C. is without jurisdiction
and liable to be quashed.
10. Examined in the light of the above principles,
the case at hand suffers from a fundamental procedural
defect. The record indicates that the FIR was registered
first and that permission to investigate was sought
subsequently. The order sheet placed on record does not
disclose any express order passed by the learned
Magistrate granting leave to investigate the matter. More
NC: 2025:KHC:37168
HC-KAR
significantly, the prosecution has not demonstrated that a
proper written complaint, as envisaged under Section
155(3) Cr.P.C., was laid before the Magistrate prior to
commencement of investigation. Since the very foundation
for conferring jurisdiction upon the Investigating Officer is
absent, the entire proceedings, including the FIR and the
charge sheet filed thereon, stand vitiated in law and
cannot be sustained.
11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse
of the process of law. The petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the following order is made:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed;
(ii) Consequently, the entire proceedings
in C.C. No.20160/2023 (arising out of Crime
No.81/2023) pending on the file of the learned
NC: 2025:KHC:37168
HC-KAR
VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under
Sections 14 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise
Act, 1965, insofar as the present petitioner is
concerned, are hereby quashed.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
