Last Updated on May 28, 2024 by Satish Mishra
In this post we will about procedure for quashing of FIR after the police conducted a raid and seized Liquor bottles from a person’s residence.
In the light of the invoice and the permit produced, no offence either under Section 32 or under Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 is made out. “Therefore, registering the case is prima facie abuse of process of law by taking advantage of the model code of conduct during Lok Sabha elections,” the judge added while quashing the FIR.
The FIR against the petitioner pertained to the recovery of 132 bottles of liquor– which contained 51.8 litres of whisky, vodka, gin, rum, and 55.4 litres of beer, wine from his house, his joint household consisted of six adults above 25 years of age and therefore there was prima facie no violation of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009.
“This Court is of the opinion that the offence under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009, that has been alleged against the petitioner is not made out from the facts and circumstances of the instant case, and that the quantity of liquor that has been seized from the residence of the petitioner falls within the maximum permissible limit that has been specified under Rule 20 of the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010,” the court said in its recent order.
“Rule 20 indicates that an individual of above 25 years of age can possess 9 litres of whisky, vodka, gin, and rum, and 18 litres of beer, wine, and alcopop…Flowing from Rule 20, as the joint household of the Petitioner consists of six adults above 25 years of age, the permissible limit for possession of liquor at the Petitioner’s house would be 54 litres of whisky, vodka, gin, and rum, and 108 litres of beer, wine, and alcopop. Therefore, there is prima facie no violation by the Petitioner of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009,” the court explained.
The court quashed the FIR against the petitioner and said that quashing of criminal proceedings is called for in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. In the present case, the Delhi Police and excise authorities had conducted a raid at the house of the petitioner the following information that illicit liquor was being stored there.
A total of 132 bottles of liquor of both Indian and Foreign brands were found from the bar counter on the ground floor of the house without any licence.
The petitioner argued that since six adults above the age of 25 years resided at his residence, the amount of liquor recovered fell within the maximum permissible limit under the law.
The aforesaid judgment has been followed by this Court in Gurbinder Singh @ Shinder Vs. State of Punjab 2016(4) RCR (Criminal) 492 .
In view of the aforementioned judgments it is apparent that if the vehicle remains parked in the police station for a considerable period of time, it would become unfit for being plying on the road as keeping it parked in the sun and rain could damage its tyres, colour, machinery, battery as also interiors of the vehicle. The value of the vehicle would also diminish in such a situation.
JUDGEMENT DIGEST ON Ishvarbhai Samatbhai Chudasama vs. State of Gujarat
In this case, we will cover and give an overview of the case Ishvarbhai Samatbhai Chudasama vs. State Of Gujarat and it will give you a brief yet precise outline regarding all the major facts and issues involved in this particular case which basically revolves quashing of FIR (section 482 of Crpc).
Applicant:- Ishvarbhai Samatbhai Chudasama
Respondent:-State Of Gujarat
Bench:- Justice Ashokkumar C. Joshi
Application Date:-05/06/2020
Court:-High Court of Ahemdabad, Gujrat.
Facts of the case:
Mr. Ravirajsinh Aniruddhsinh Jadeja, Police Head Constable Badge No. 859, City ‘B’ Division Police Station, Jamnagar, on 13.03.2020 while he was on night patrolling accompanied with Police Head Constable Rajeshbhai D. Vegad, Police Constables Hiteshbhai Vanrajsinh Jadeja, Kishorebhai Ravjibhai Parmar, Amitbhai DevsurbhaiGadhvi, DharmendrasinhNattubhai Jadeja and Yuvraj sinh Bharat sinh Jadeja,nearGandhinagar AshapuraMataji Temple, they availed secret information that one Mr. Dharmendrasinh is residing near AshapuraMataji Temple is having English made liquor. They immediately called the panchas and as per Section 120 of the Prohibition Act they raided the premises wherein the person was present who disclosed his name as DharmendrasinhRajendrasinhVala. He was having 66 bottles of English made liquor but not having requisite pass / permit. It was Party Special Deluxe Whisky of 36 bottles worth Rs.18,000/- as well as MC Dowell’s No.1 Superior Whisky in 30 bottles and the rate of each bottle is Rs.500/- and in all Rs.15,000/-. In presence of panchas, by way of panchnama, ultimately the offence is registered under Sections 65 (a), 65 (e) and 116 (b) of the Prohibition Act and the Accused person was arrested.
Timeline of events :-
13/03/2020 – Police raided on basis on an anonymous tip.
05/06/2020 –Application filed for quashing the FIR.
Issues/ Controversies involved:-
- Does the applicant is liable under Section 66 (a) (e) and 116(b) of Prohibitions act ?
- Is this a fit case to exercise the extraordinary power of the court under section 482 of CrPc.
Judgements quoted on settled law:-
- i) Narendra Singh v. State of Punjab[2014 (6) SCC 466].
- ii) Parbhatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujarat[2017 (9) SCC 641]
iii) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 AIR 604]
- iv) P.Kapur v. State of Punjab[1960 AIR 862]
- v) Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr. V/s. Mathew K.C. in Civil Appeal No.1281 of 2018 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.24610 of 2015
- vi) Surya Dev Rai V/s. Ram Chander Rai& Ors. in Civil Appeal No.6110 of 2003
ALSO READ-HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH QUASHING OF FIR IN MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES
Findings of the court :- After pursuant of provision in section 482 of Crpc and pursuant of supreme court judgements, merely stating that the applicant was not present at the time of raid and the place where the raid was conducted does not belong to applicant is not enough to entertain the application. The investigation is still pending and therefore the court can not only rely on the evidence stated in the FIR. Not entertaining the application is not the abuse of the process of power of the law.
Also by referring to the judgement ‘Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr. V/s. Mathew K.C. in Civil Appeal No.1281 of 2018’ the court denied constitutional remedies that the applicant prayed for under articles 226 & 227 stating whenever there is alternative efficacious remedy available with applicant, applicant is not entitled for constitutional remedies. And once the chargesheet is filed the applicant can defend his case in the trial court.
ALSO READ-498A FIR QUASHING HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH PUNJAB HARYANA
Conclusion:-In the case of Parbhatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujarat [2017 (9) SCC 641] said the same thing because every facts and circumstances of each case is unique and therefore no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated in general.
Therefore it could be concluded that though the applicant fulfills principles stated in previous judgements of supreme courts, due to pending investigation and thus not complete evidence, the high court has full discretionary power as mentioned in section 482 of CRPC.
ALSO READ-QUASHING OF FIR UNDER SECTION 188 IPC HIGH COURT
This post was written by Rushikesh Patil
For case specific advice, please contact best/top/expert Criminal Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur of Punjab
More on 99888-17966
