Section 61’s complaint requirement does not bar prosecution for illicit transport without a valid permit.

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR Crime No. 631/2023, registered at Police Station MIG Colony, Indore, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

On secret information, police intercepted a Skoda car bearing registration No. MP-09-WF-9721 on 22 September 2023 and seized 93.390 bulk litres of foreign liquor contained in 283 bottles.

The driver, Brijkishore alias Banti, allegedly stated that the vehicle belonged to Shubh Laxmi Ferrum Pvt. Ltd., of which the petitioner was a director, and that the liquor was being transported at her instructions.

The petitioner produced a transport permit issued to Ironsky Productions Pvt. Ltd.; however, the Assistant Excise Commissioner subsequently reported that the permit did not authorise transportation through the seized vehicle, the destination was not a registered seed centre, the liquor lacked batch numbers, and the permit particulars did not correspond with the vehicle or authorised person.

The retail liquor shop owner also denied supplying the seized liquor to the driver on the relevant date.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and Brijkishore under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.

The petitioner contended, inter alia, that the matter constituted only a breach of licence conditions and that prosecution was barred absent a complaint or report by the Collector or an authorised District Excise Officer under Section 61 of the Act.

Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act disclosed a cognizable offence warranting continuation of the prosecution, or were liable to be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023?

Whether the alleged transportation of liquor constituted merely a breach of a licence, permit, or pass condition, thereby attracting Sections 39 and 61 of the M.P. Excise Act and requiring a complaint or report by the competent Excise authority?

The Court applied Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, concerning the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Relying on State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, it reiterated that quashing may be warranted where the allegations, even if accepted in full, do not constitute an offence, disclose no cognizable offence, are inherently improbable, or are barred by law.

It also relied on Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, holding that while the High Court must exercise restraint and should not assess the merits or credibility of evidence at the investigation or cognizance stage, it may quash proceedings where the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence.

Section 34(1)-(2) of the M.P. Excise Act penalises unlawful manufacture, transport, possession, or sale of intoxicants, with enhanced punishment where the quantity of liquor exceeds fifty bulk litres.

Section 39 applies to intentional misconduct or breach of conditions by a licence, permit, or pass holder, while Section 61 restricts cognizance for offences involving contravention of licence, permit, or pass conditions unless instituted upon a complaint or report of the Collector or authorised Excise Officer.

The Court found prima facie material indicating that the liquor was transported without a valid permit or transit pass.

The permit produced by the petitioner did not correspond with the seized vehicle, the authorised person, the destination, or the timing of transportation; further, the liquor lacked batch numbers and the alleged supplier denied having supplied it.

The petitioner was unable to identify any licence condition permitting transportation without the requisite permit or pass.

Accordingly, the Court characterised the alleged conduct as unlawful transportation falling within Section 34(2), rather than a mere breach of licence conditions punishable under Section 39. Consequently, the statutory restriction under Section 61 was held inapplicable.

Applying the principles in Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure, the Court held that the allegations were neither absurd nor inherently improbable and that it could not, in its inherent jurisdiction, evaluate the credibility or merits of the evidence collected during investigation.

Since the FIR and investigation materials disclosed a cognizable offence and did not fall within the recognised categories for quashing, the petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 was dismissed, along with the prayer to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings.