“How Do You Permit 15-Yr-Old To Consume Alcohol?”: Karnataka HC While Staying Proceedings Against Brewery Partner In Minor's Suicide Case

The Karnataka High Court has granted an interim stay on criminal proceedings against a brewery licensee at Bengaluru, arising from a teenager's suicide after alleged consumption of alcohol from its premises.

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna heard both parties at length before granting the interim stay till the next date of hearing.

“A life is lost…How do you permit a 15-year-old boy to enter your premises and consume alcohol? None of the pubs in Bengaluru is observing the norms, they must be ready for prosecution….The Commissioner should issue strict direction that if any pubs serve liquor to anyone without aadhar card verification, strict action must be taken”, the court orally remarked while granting the interim stay.

However, the petitioner's counsel vehemently objected to his arraignment in the FIR. The petitioner submitted that their establishment is a newly established family restaurant and brewery. In the FIR framed by the Rajarajeshwari Police Station, it has been stated that the restaurant/brewery enabled the minors to consume liquor in violation of the liquor license norms. There is no allegation that the enterprise has served them alcohol per se. The accused is a valid license holder for the sale of liquor. But the establishment or its staff has not knowingly permitted the minor boy to consume alcohol, submitted Adv. Sharath S. Gowda for the petitioner licensee.

The partner was not at the premises during the time of the alleged incident, and no overt act can be attributed to him, added the counsel for the licensee.

According to a report by the News Minute, a class 10 student had attended his school's farewell party on January 30, and later accompanied a group of seven to eight classmates to Legacy Brewing Company, a pub in Rajarajeshwarinagar. He allegedly committed suicide by jumping from the 7^th floor of his apartment on January 31.

Consequently, owner and staff of Legacy Brewery, a Bengaluru pub at RajaRajeshwari Nagar, was booked for serving liquor to minors. The stakeholders of Legacy Brewery were booked under Section 77 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of Children's Act, 1986 and Section 36(1)(g) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

Due to the procedural irregularity of not obtaining prior approval from jurisdictional magistrate before registering the case involving non-cognizable offences, the initial FIR [Cr. No. 32/2026] was challenged in the High Court through WP 3613/2026. The court ordered in favour of the petitioner by quashing the said FIR, citing Section155(2) of CrPC [Section 174(2) of BNSS].

After one month, the police registered a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR No. 79/2026) on March 4, 2026. The informant sub inspector was then directed to seek permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 174(2) of the BNSS. The Magistrate granted this permission on March 5, 2026, leading to the registration of the impugned FIR in Crime No. 69/2026.

The owner of the Pub has now approached the High Court seeking reprieve against the FIR filed against him. Today, the court has granted him a short reprieve in the matter.

The primary contention of the petitioner, as made out by the submissions in the writ, is that they haven't 'sold' or 'given' alcohol to the deceased minor. The invoice from the restaurant/brewery also proves that no liquor has been served to the deceased minor or his friend group, argued the petitioner's counsel. Therefore, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences have not been made out, and the trial court has erred in its order, submitted the counsel.

The petitioner also tried to highlight a procedural flaw committed by the trial court while giving the grant of permission to investigate. According to the licensee, the magistrate did not endorse the requisition with the date and time of receipt, or specify whether it was received by post or personally. This is in contravention of Section 174(2) of BNSS and Chapter V Rule I of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practise. Due to the alleged absence of these details, the petitioner submitted that the order permitting investigation turned out to be 'mechanical' and 'without the application of judicial mind'. The licensee has relied on Vignesh Pillai v. State of Karnataka (WP 11186/2023) and Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka (Crl P No.5323/2024) to support such contentions.

In the FIR, the police have invoked Section 77 of Juvenile Justice Act, accusing the establishment of giving/causing to give an intoxicating substance to a minor. The petitioner argued that the establishment has not intentionally allowed them to consume alcohol. No staff members have served liquor to any of the minors, as inferred from the footage and photographs. The group of boys have likely consumed alcohol from elsewhere and not from the stock inside the premises of the brewery, submitted the counsel for the licensee.

Since it's a family restaurant, children are also allowed inside for the consumption of food items. As per the CCTV footage, they have only purchased food items and soft drinks from the restaurant/brewery, submitted the counsel.

The petitioner, in turn, added that the group of boys could have brought the alcohol clandestinely inside the premises. There is no allegation in the post-mortem report that he attempted suicide due to overconsumption of alcohol. But the report states that there was undigested rice and the smell of alcohol emanating from the stomach while conducting the post-mortem.

The state, in response, argued that there is no non-application of mind by the magistrate. The brewery and its stakeholders can't wash their hands by putting up a board that they don't serve alcohol to underage persons. They should have ensured that no consumption takes place in their premises, added the counsel for the state.

Case Title: V Chittibabu v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: WP 8163/2026