Court holds police action of conducting raid and seizure before FIR registration violates mandatory procedure under CrPC Section 154; distinguishes from corruption case precedents.
In a significant judgment delivered on September 28, 2026, the Karnataka High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Zainul Abdeen, accused under Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code and multiple provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2020. The Court found that the police had violated mandatory procedural safeguards by conducting raids, searches, and seizures before registering the First Information Report (FIR) or even making an entry in the Station House Diary (SHD), thereby vitiating the entire investigation.
The case arose from a suo motu complaint lodged by the police inspector on February 26, 2023, alleging illegal sale and slaughter of cattle in Shabbeer Nagar, Karnataka. Police conducted a series of raids on shops and godowns suspected of illegal beef sale, including a godown owned by the petitioner. The raids involved seizure of meat and other articles in the presence of veterinary officers, municipality workers, and witnesses. However, the police registered the FIR only after the raids and seizures had taken place.
Zainul Abdeen challenged the proceedings on the ground that the police failed to register the FIR upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence, as mandated under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Counsel for the petitioner argued that the police lacked prior authorization required for conducting search and seizure under the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2020, and that the petitioner was implicated without sufficient prima facie material.
The State opposed the petition, relying on recent Karnataka High Court precedents which held that preliminary inquiry before FIR registration does not automatically vitiate proceedings unless prejudice is shown. The State also cited the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Dr. Saleem Ur Rahman (2022), which permitted preliminary enquiries in corruption cases before FIR registration.
Justice Rajesh Rai K, however, distinguished the present case from corruption cases, emphasizing that the police here had not merely verified information but had substantially investigated by conducting raids, seizures, and recording statements before FIR registration. The Court noted that the police received the information at 9:30 a.m. but recorded it in the Station House Diary only at noon, after raids had already commenced.
The Court reiterated the binding Supreme Court precedent in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014), which mandates FIR registration upon receipt of information about a cognizable offence, subject only to limited exceptions. The Court held that failure to comply with this procedure, especially when substantial investigative steps precede FIR registration, renders the proceedings illegal and liable to be quashed.
Further, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's contention that the premises belonged to his father and that he was implicated primarily on the basis of a voluntary statement. Given these facts, the Court found that prejudice to the petitioner could not be ruled out.
Consequently, the Karnataka High Court allowed the petition under Section 482 CrPC and quashed all proceedings against the petitioner arising from Crime No.56/2023 registered by the Hunsur Police Station. The judgment serves as an important reminder to law enforcement agencies to strictly adhere to procedural mandates to protect the rights of accused persons and maintain the integrity of criminal investigations.
Bottom Line:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 154 On receipt of information disclosing commission of cognizable offence, registration of FIR is mandatory - Where police conducted raid, search, seizure and other substantial investigative steps before registering FIR or even making entry in Station House Diary, proceedings stand vitiated - Principle relating to preliminary enquiry in corruption cases held distinguishable.
Statutory provision(s):
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 154, Section 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 429; Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2020 Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 Sections 4, 5, 7, 8
Zainul Abdeen v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2998062
