FIR quashed where liquor-service licence omission was inadvertent, bona fide, and penalty had been paid.

The petitioners invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) seeking quashing of FIR No. 100/2019 dated 12 September 2019, registered at Police Station Chanakyapuri under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 (“Excise Act”).

Acting on secret information, the police raided Soul Club, Hotel Ashoka, where a soft-launch party was being held and liquor was allegedly being served to approximately 40–50 persons without a valid licence.

During investigation, it emerged that the petitioner company had submitted three online applications for P-10A permits on 10 September 2019, covering events on 13 and 14 September 2019, but not the event held on 11 September 2019.

A chargesheet under Section 33 of the Excise Act was subsequently filed on 31 March 2022.

The petitioners claimed that the omission resulted from an inadvertent typographical mistake and that they already possessed a yearly licence for SOHO Nation valid until 30 September 2019.

They further stated that they had paid 50% of the penalty, amounting to ₹10,62,937, pursuant to an order of the Deputy Commissioner/Licensing Authority dated 3 June 2020.

The State did not oppose quashing of the FIR.

Whether the FIR and proceedings under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act could be quashed in exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, where liquor was served without a valid permit but the omission was claimed to be an inadvertent error and the petitioners had otherwise held a subsisting licence.

Whether the petitioners’ prior licence, first-time nature of the alleged violation, payment of regulatory penalty, and the State’s “no objection” justified granting relief under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court applied Section 482 CrPC, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice.

It also considered Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009, which penalises specified violations relating to liquor, including service or possession of liquor without the requisite authorisation.

The Court treated the existence of a subsisting licence, the absence of an apparent ulterior motive, the first-time nature of the alleged violation, payment of the prescribed penalty, and the prosecution’s lack of objection as relevant circumstances warranting exercise of the inherent quashing jurisdiction.

The Court accepted that liquor had in fact been served at the premises without a valid licence on the relevant night, thereby disclosing the basic factual basis for the FIR under Section 33 of the Excise Act.

However, it found that the petitioners had previously held a valid licence for SOHO Nation until 30 September 2019 and that the failure to obtain the permit for 11 September 2019 appeared to be a mistaken and inadvertent typographical omission rather than a deliberate attempt to violate the Excise Act.

The petitioners’ payment of ₹10,62,937 towards 50% penalty further demonstrated their bona fides and conduct.

Since this was their first alleged violation and the learned APP expressed no objection to quashing, the Court concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings would not serve the ends of justice.

The quashing was conditional upon the petitioners depositing ₹1,00,000 with the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund and a further ₹1,00,000 with the Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund within two weeks.

The petitioners were directed to file proof of deposit within one week thereafter; failure to deposit the costs would result in the matter being listed before the Court.