Licensees bear a statutory duty of vigilance to prevent minors from entering or consuming intoxicants on premises.

The petitioner, a partner in "Legacy Brewing Company," was named as Accused No. 1 following the death of a 15-year-old boy, Reyan Jacob.

On 31-01-2026, the juvenile allegedly consumed alcohol at the petitioner’s brewery and subsequently died after falling from the 7th floor of an apartment.

A post-mortem examination confirmed the presence of alcohol in the deceased's body.

Initially, the police registered Crime No. 32 of 2026 for offences under Section 36(1)(g) of the Karnataka Excise Act and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act.

This was quashed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 3613 of 2026 because the offences were non-cognizable and the police failed to obtain the mandatory prior permission from a Magistrate under the then-Section 155(2) CrPC/Section 174(2) BNSS.

Reserving liberty to act in accordance with the law, the State filed a new non-cognizable report (NCR 79/2026) and obtained permission from the XLVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 05-03-2026 to register Crime No. 69 of 2026.

The petitioner moved the High Court to quash this second FIR and the Magistrate's permission order.

Section 36(1)(g) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, which penalizes licensees who sell or give intoxicants to minors or permit/suffer minors to remain on premises where excisable articles are sold.

Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which punishes anyone giving intoxicating liquor or drugs to a child.

Section 174(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the requirement for Magistrate permission to investigate non-cognizable cases.

Section 528 of the BNSS regarding the High Court's inherent power to quash proceedings.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the Magistrate’s order lacked application of mind, noting that the Magistrate is not required to conduct a "roving enquiry" at the stage of granting permission, provided the ingredients of the alleged offences are prima facie evident.

Regarding the Excise Act, the Court observed that Section 36(1)(g) encompasses not only the active sale of alcohol but also the "passive or active" tolerance of a minor remaining on the premises.

The Court found that the undisputed presence of a 15-year-old in the brewery and the presence of alcohol in his body necessitated an investigation.

The petitioner’s defense—that the boys surreptitiously brought and consumed their own liquor—was deemed a matter for investigation rather than a ground for quashing at the threshold under Section 528 BNSS.

The Court emphasized that licensees bear a "higher duty of vigilance" and must implement rigorous age verification protocols, such as checking Aadhar or other identification, rather than treating it as a "perfunctory ritual".

The Court held that there was sufficient ground to permit the investigation to ascertain how minors gained entry and whether statutory obligations were discharged by the licensee.

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition and dissolved any operating interim orders, allowing the investigation in Crime No. 69 of 2026 to proceed.