IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8495 OF 2015 BETWEEN 1 . SRI. H R NAGARAJU S/O RANGARAMANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ROYAL WINES, ANTHARASANA HALLI TUMKUR – 572101.
2 . SRI. PRAKASH S/O NARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS ROYAL WINES, ANTHARASANA HALLI TUMKUR – 572101.
(BY SRI. RAMESH G P, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . STATE OF KARANATAKA REPTD BY SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT (EXCISE) VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560001 2 . SRI. M NATARAJ INSPECTOR OF EXCISE DISTRICT E B I EXCISE NEAR WATER TANK CIRCLE ...PETITIONERS GANDHINAGAR TUMKUR – 572101.
RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS SHOURYA NILAYA MARUTHINAGAR MAIN ROAD SHETTYHALLI GATE TUMKUR – 572101.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN NO.
40/2012 AND 2013, CASE NO. C.C. NO.1939/2014 DATED 11.03.2013 MARKED AS DOCUMENT NO.1 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMKUR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Though the matter is coming up for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent-State, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The 1st petitioner is the CL-2 License holder carrying on the business of liquor shop in the name and style of “Royal Wines”, at Antharasanahalli, Tumakur District. The 2nd petitioner is employee in the shop. On 11.03.2013 at about 12.30, the 2nd respondent has filed a case against the petitioners alleging that in violation of the provisions contained under Sections 13 and 15 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, the petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 43 of the Act. It is case of the 2nd respondent that on 11.03.2013 on account of election to the Local Body a ‘Dry day’ was declared and it was found that the 2nd petitioner-employee was serving liquor to some customers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent was not the Sub-Inspector of Excise, Tumakur, during the relevant point of time. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent was transferred on 02.09.2008 from the office of the Excise office of Tumakur to Somawarapet and reliving orders were issued on 04.09.2008. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the order dated 01.06.2017, passed in Crl.P.No.2497/2012 and connected matters, in the case of Sri.A.Narayanaswamy Vs. State of Karnataka and Others and other connected matters. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the complaint given by the Excise License holders in Tumakur, a disciplinary action was initiated against the 5th respondent therein. The Co-ordinate Bench has taken note of the fact that by orders bearing No. E¹E/51/DG¤/²¸ÀÄÛ/2008, dated 28.02.2017 and No.
E¹E/11/©J£ïf/rJ¸ï¹(1)/2013, dated 22.04.2017, passed by the Excise Commissioner and Disciplinary Authority, the Commissioner of Excise and Disciplinary Authority has found fault with the action of the 5th respondent therein and has passed the said orders dated 28.02.2017 and 22.04.2017 and punishment has been imposed on the 5th respondent. It has been observed in the said orders that the 5th respondent had no authority to act as Sub-Inspector of Excise, Tumakur and therefore, all the actions initiated by the 5th respondent have been set at naught. Consequently, the FIRs registered against the petitioners therein by the 5th respondent have been quashed.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent-State and perusing the petition papers, more importantly, the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, in the case of Sri.A.Narayanaswamy (supra), this Court finds that the impugned FIR was registered on 11.03.2013 and in the case of Sri.A.Narayanaswamy and other connected matters also the FIRs of the year 2012-13, registered on 14.03.2013 and 16.03.2013 have been quashed. Since, the FIR in question is also of the same period, similar orders are required to be passed in this petition.
5. For the reasons stated above, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the impugned FIR in No.40/2012-13, registered on 11.03.2013 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1939/2014, pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC., Tumakur, are hereby quashed and set aside.
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2015 filed for stay does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE DL