KRISHNAMURTHY S/O VENKATASWAMY vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18161
CRL.P No. 102865 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184042026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102865 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
KRISHNAMURTHY S/O. VENKATASWAMY,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ. KUDLIGI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583218.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI S. S. YADRAMI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI MARUTI HANCHINAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HOSAHALLI POLICE, KOTTUR CIRCLE,
VIJAYANGAR DISTRICT,
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH-580011.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.528 OF BNSS
(U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.), PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR AND
COMPLAINT REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN THEIR P.S. CRIME NO.151/2026 IN
HOSAHALLI P.S. FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SEC. 3 AND 7 OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 AND
SEC. 287 OF BNS IN PENDING OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
COURT KUDALIGI VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18161
CRL.P No. 102865 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184042026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri. S.S.Yadrami, learned Senior counsel for
Sri.Maruti Hanchinamani, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri. Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara, learned HCGP for
respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the entire
proceedings in Crime No.151/2026 of Hosahalli Police
Station, Vijayanagar District, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential
commodities Act, 1955 and Section 287 of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending on the file of the learned Civil
Judge and JMFC, Kudligi.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case in nutshell
are as under;
de facto
The complainant, the Food Inspector attached to
the Office of the Tahsildar, Kudligi, lodged a complaint on
09.08.2026 at 2:00 p.m., alleging that on 08.08.2026 at about
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18161
CRL.P No. 102865 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184042026
4:00 p.m., he received a credible information that the
petitioner had illegally stored LPG gas cylinders situated in the
front yard of his house. Hence, he proceeded to Hasahalli
Village, conducted a raid and seized, in all, 216 cylinders, out of
which 186 cylinders were empty and 30 LPG cylinders were
filled with LPG, under a seizure mahazar. On the following day,
he lodged the complaint, which led to registration of the FIR
and initiation of investigation.
4. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner has
filed this petition seeking to quash the entire proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and has
not committed any offence alleged. Further, it is contended that
de facto
the very complaint lodged by the complainant is illegal,
as he lodged the same without having any authority or power
to search and seize the LPG cylinders. It is further contended
that, as per the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply
and Distribution) Order, 2000, particularly Clause 13 thereof,
the Food Inspector attached to the Office of the Tahsildar is not
authorised to search and seize the LPG cylinders. As per the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18161
CRL.P No. 102865 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184042026
said provision of 13(1) of the order, only an officer of the
Central Government or State Government, not below the rank
of Inspector, duly authorised by a general or special order by
the Central Government or State Government, as the case may
be, or an officer of a Government Oil Company not below the
rank of Sales Officer, authorised by the Central Government, is
empowered to conduct search and seizure of petroleum
de facto
products, including LPG cylinders. Therefore, the
complainant, being a Food Inspector, had no authority to
conduct the search and seizure. It is further contended that,
de facto
though the complainant received credible information
on 08.08.2026 at 4:00 p.m., he visited the spot at about 6:00
p.m. and conducted the mahazar between 6:30 p.m. and 8:30
p.m. However, he lodged the complaint only on 09.08.2026 at
2:00 p.m. Therefore, there is considerable delay in reporting
the case to the respondent-police, and the said delay has not
been explained. Hence, the continuation of the criminal
proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the
petition.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18161
CRL.P No. 102865 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184042026
Per contra
6. , the learned HCGP vehemently
contended that the petitioner had stored, in all, 216 LPG
cylinders without any valid licence or authority and therefore,
de facto
the complainant rightly conducted the raid, seized the
cylinders under a mahazar and lodged the complaint. It is
contended that there are serious allegations against the
petitioner and the investigation is still pending, and the
Investigating Officer has to file the charge sheet against the
petitioner. Accordingly, ,learned HCGP prayed to dismiss the
petition.
7. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on
record, it is evident from the mahazar that the same was drawn
on 08.08.2026 between 6:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. at the spot.
The mahazar discloses the seizure of the articles. It is also
important to note that the complaint was lodged on 09.08.2026
at 2:00 p.m., i.e., on the following day of the seizure of the
articles.
8. In the complaint, a specific allegation is made that
de facto
the complainant received a credible information on
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18161
CRL.P No. 102865 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184042026
08.08.2026 at 4:00 p.m. and conducted the raid between 6:30
de facto
p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on the same day. Admittedly, the
complainant, who is the Food Inspector attached to the Office
of the Tahsildar, Kudligi, had not obtained any search warrant
to search and seized the articles.
9. On perusal of the contents of the complaint, it is
de facto
alleged that, upon conducting the raid, the
complainant found that the petitioner was refilling cylinders by
using domestic LPG cylinders for commercial purposes.
Accordingly, he seized the empty cylinders as well as the filled
LPG cylinders.
10. In the instant case, before seizure of the articles,
de facto
the complainant ought to have obtained the requisite
authorisation and secured a search warrant. Furthermore, the
de facto
complainant conducted the raid and seized the
cylinders at Hosahalli village, though the respondent-police
station is situated within a distance of one kilometre from the
de facto
said village. However, the complainant did not inform
the jurisdictional police about the intended raid.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18161
CRL.P No. 102865 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184042026
11. Further, the specific contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the mandatory requirements
contemplated under Clause 13 of the LPG Order, 2000, has not
de facto
been complied with. As per the aforesaid provision, the
complainant was not authorised to conduct the raid. It is only
the officers authorised under the aforesaid provision, who are
empowered to conduct the raid and seize LPG cylinders.
de facto
Therefore, the complainant, without having any
authority, conducted the search and seizure and proceeded
with the investigation.
12. The learned HCGP vehemently contended that the
alleged offences are cognizable in nature. If the alleged
de facto
offences are cognizable in nature, the complainant,
having received the information on 08.08.2026 at 4:00 p.m.,
could to have registered the case in terms of Section 154 of
Cr.P.C., in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
Lalita Kumari's de facto
in case. However, the complainant
failed to do so. On the other hand, if the alleged offences are
de facto
non-cognizable in nature, the complainant ought to
have complied with the provisions of Sections 155(1) and
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18161
CRL.P No. 102865 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020184042026
155(2) of Cr.P.C. Admittedly, those provisions has not been
complied with in the present case. Hence, it shows that,
without complying with the mandatory provisions of Sections
de facto
154, 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr.P.C., the Food Inspector/
complainant proceeded with the investigation, which amount to
an abuse of process of law. Hence, the Court proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
allowed
The criminal petition is .
The entire proceedings in Crime No.151/2026 of
Hosahalli Police Station, Vijayanagar District, registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the
Essential commodities Act, 1955 and Section 287 of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending on the file of the
learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Kudligi, insofar as petitioner is
concerned, are hereby quashed.
Pending I.A’s, if any, stand disposed of as they do not
survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
AM/-
CT-AN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25