Karnataka High Court
Samiullah Khan vs The State Through on 31 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4320
CRL.P No. 200849 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200849 OF 2025
[482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)]
BETWEEN:
SAMIULLAH KHAN S/O AZMATAZULLAH KHAN,
AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. ADILLABAD TOWN, DIST. ADILLABAD,
STATE TELANGANA-504001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE THROUGH
KALAGI POLICE STATION,
DIST. KALABURAGI,
Digitally signed NOW REPRESENTED BY
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ARATI PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528
OF BNSS,2023 PRAYING TO EXERCISE INHERENT POWERS
U/SEC.528 OF BNSS 2023, EXAMINE THE RECORDS AND
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.2472/2022
(CRIME.NO.2/2022 OF KALAGI POLICE STATION, TQ.
CHITTAPUR, DIST.KALABURAGI) FOR THE OFFENCE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4320
CRL.P No. 200849 of 2025
HC-KAR
PUNISHABLE U/S. 379 OF IPC AND SEC. 98 OF KP ACT R/W
SEC. 34 OF IPC, IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC COURT AT CHITTAPUR, AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
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) Petitioner being accused No.4 in C.C.No.2472/2022 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Chittapur in Crime No.2/2022 of Kalagi Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.
2. Heard Sri Avinash A. Uplaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Arati Patil, learned HCGP for the respondent. Perused the materials on record.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4320 CRL.P No. 200849 of 2025 HC-KAR
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 petitioner 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 '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 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 -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4320 CRL.P No. 200849 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 98 of the K.P. Act. 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 movable property dishonestly, out of the possession of any other person, without his consent and moves 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 -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4320 CRL.P No. 200849 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 petitioner is abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) Pending criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner (accused No.4) 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 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4320 CRL.P No. 200849 of 2025 HC-KAR read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 98 of the K.P. Act, is quashed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE SWK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT:PK