Karnataka High Court
Sayed Shahid @ Shahid vs The State Through Kalagi Police Station on 15 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5447
CRL.P No. 201359 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201359 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SAYED SHAHID @ SHAHID
S/O SAYED ASAD,
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: LORRY DIRVER,
R/O. ADILABAD KOLIPURA, HYDERABAD-504001.
2. SHAIKH MAHIBOOB S/O ABDUL AJIJ,
AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. ADILBADA, SHANTI NAGAR,
HYDERABAD-504001.
Digitally signed 3. SHOHEL KHAN S/O SHAMSHODDIN,
by RAMESH AGE:26 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
MATHAPATI R/O ADILBADA PARKAKOTA,
Location: HIGH HYDERABAD-504001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE THROUGH KALAGI POLICE STATION,
DIST. KALABURAGI, NOW REPRESENTED BY,
ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5447
CRL.P No. 201359 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO,
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.2472/2022 (CRIME
NO.02/2022 OF KALAGI POLICE STATION, TQ. CHITTAPUR,
DIST. KALABURAGI) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 379 OF IPC AND SECTION 98 OF KP ACT R/W
SECTION 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC COURT AT CHITTAPUR, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA) The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.2/2022 of Kalagi Police Station pending in C.C.No.2472/2022 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Chittapur, registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short 'K.P. Act') r/w Section 34 of IPC, are -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5447 CRL.P No. 201359 of 2025 HC-KAR seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
2. Heard Sri Avinash A. Uplaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gopalkrishna B. Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is liable to be quashed invoking inherent power under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [for short, 'the BNSS']?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
4. The respondent-police registered the FIR in Crime No.2/2022 against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5447 CRL.P No. 201359 of 2025 HC-KAR offence under Section 20(2) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Rules, 2004 alleging that, accused No.4 being the transporter and owner of the vehicle, accused Nos.1 to 3 being the driver and assistants, were found transporting gutka, illegally. On receipt of such credible information, the police went to the spot, waylaid the vehicle and found 50 bags of gutka sachets being transported without any license. The same was seized under the mahazar. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and under Section 98 of the K.P. Act read with Section 34 of IPC. As per the final report, it is the contention of the prosecution that the accused have stolen 50 bags of gutka and were transporting the same.
5. To invoke Section 379 of IPC, the ingredients of Section 378 of IPC, which defines theft are to be satisfied. As per Section 378 of IPC, a person must take any -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5447 CRL.P No. 201359 of 2025 HC-KAR movable property dishonestly, out of the possession of any other person, without his consent and must move that property in order to take it away, which amounts to theft. In the present case, the Investigating Officer is not aware about the source of 50 bags of gutka. Admittedly, there is no prohibition or ban on transportation or consumption of such gutka in the State of Karnataka. As per Section 98 of the K.P. Act, there must be reason to believe that the property is a stolen property for which the accused could not account satisfactorily.
6. When there are no prima facie materials to contend that the seized property is a stolen property, I am of the opinion that, there is absolutely no material to constitute the offence in question. Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is in abuse of process of law.
7. In view of the above, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: -6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5447 CRL.P No. 201359 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) Pending criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners (accused Nos.1 to 3) in Crime No.2/2022 of Kalagi Police Station, pending in C.C.No.2472/2022, on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Chittapur, for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Section 98 of the K.P. Act read with Section 34 of IPC, is quashed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48 CT:PK