Delhi High Court Quashes Excise FIR Over Unlicensed Soft-Launch Party; Finds Permit Lapse Was Bona Fide Mistake, Imposes ₹2-Lakh Costs on Company
Delhi High Court Quashes Liquor-Service FIR Against Striker Beverages; Holds Missing Daily Permit Resulted From Inadvertent Error, Not Deliberate Excise Violation
Facts
The petitioners, Striker Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and another, approached the Delhi High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 100/2019 registered at Police Station Chanakyapuri under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009.
The FIR arose from a raid conducted at Soul Club, Hotel Ashoka, Chanakyapuri, where a soft-launch party attended by about 40–50 persons was underway and liquor was allegedly being served without a valid licence. During the raid, used and empty bottles as well as sealed liquor bottles were recovered. The owner and manager of the club were arrested and later released on bail.
During investigation, it emerged that Striker Beverages had applied online for three P-10A permits on 10 September 2019. However, the applications covered events on 13 September and 14 September 2019, including two applications for 14 September, while no permit was obtained for the soft-launch event held on the intervening night of 11–12 September 2019.
A chargesheet under Section 33 of the Excise Act was filed on 31 March 2022.
Issues
The principal issue before the Court was whether continuation of the criminal proceedings under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act was justified where:
- the absence of a daily permit was claimed to be the result of an inadvertent error;
- the petitioners already held a valid yearly licence in the name of SOHO Nation;
- the petitioners had already paid a substantial regulatory penalty; and
- the State had no objection to quashing of the FIR.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners contended that they intended to apply for daily liquor permits for 11, 13 and 14 September 2019, but due to an inadvertent error, they applied once for 13 September and twice for 14 September, while omitting 11 September.
They argued that the licence lapse was therefore not deliberate.
They further pointed out that petitioner No. 1 already held a valid and subsisting yearly licence issued on 25 March 2019 in the name of SOHO Nation, valid up to 30 September 2019. Despite having that annual licence, a daily permit was mistakenly applied for SOHO Nation for 14 September as well, which, according to the petitioners, reinforced that the duplication was accidental.
The petitioners also submitted that, while subsequently applying for L-16 and L-16F licences, they had already paid 50% penalty amounting to ₹10,62,937 pursuant to an order of the Deputy Commissioner/Licensing Authority dated 3 June 2020.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State fairly acknowledged that the petitioners did not have a valid licence for serving liquor on the intervening night of 11–12 September 2019.
However, the learned APP stated that the State had no objection to quashing of the FIR.
Analysis of the Law
The judgment is brief and largely fact-specific. The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to assess whether continuation of the prosecution would serve any meaningful purpose in the circumstances.
The Court did not dispute that liquor had been served without the required valid licence on the relevant night.
However, it looked beyond the bare technical violation and considered the surrounding circumstances, including the petitioners’ existing regulatory licences, prior compliance history, the nature of the permit error, payment of the administrative penalty and the State’s stand.
The Court treated the case as involving a mistaken and inadvertent lapse rather than conduct accompanied by ulterior motive.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment does not rely upon or discuss any specific reported precedent in its reasoning.
The decision is essentially based on the peculiar factual circumstances of the case and the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
Accordingly, no substantial precedent-based ratio was developed beyond the general application of the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings where continuation would not serve the interests of justice.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court expressly acknowledged that the raid revealed liquor being served without a valid licence.
However, it considered several factors together.
First, the petitioners already held a valid yearly permit/licence in the name of SOHO Nation, valid from 25 March 2019 until 30 September 2019.
Second, the present case represented the first alleged violation of this nature by the petitioners.
Third, the duplicate permit applications for 14 September, coupled with omission of 11 September, supported the petitioners’ explanation that the lapse resulted from an inadvertent or typographical error rather than deliberate evasion.
The Court therefore found no ulterior motive behind the missing permit.
Fourth, the petitioners had already paid a substantial penalty of ₹10,62,937, which the Court treated as relevant conduct indicating that regulatory consequences had already followed.
Finally, the State itself raised no objection to quashing.
On the cumulative effect of these circumstances, the Court concluded that the FIR and consequential proceedings could appropriately be quashed, although not without monetary costs.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 100/2019 dated 12 September 2019 registered at Police Station Chanakyapuri under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, along with all consequential proceedings.
However, the relief was made conditional upon payment of total costs of ₹2 lakh:
- ₹1 lakh to the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund; and
- ₹1 lakh to the Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund.
The amounts were directed to be deposited within two weeks, followed by filing of receipts within one week thereafter. Failure to comply would result in the matter being relisted before the Court.
Case Details
Case: Striker Beverages Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 4767/2022
Judge: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Date: 31 August 2026
Result: FIR under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act and all consequential proceedings quashed, subject to payment of ₹2 lakh in costs
