ORDER : (Pranay Verma, J.) 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioners/accused for quashment of FIR No.0536 dated 13/11/2018, registered at police station - Kanadia, District Indore for offences punishable under Sections 36-A and 36-B of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and consequent charge sheet dated 15/11/2018 bearing case No.RCT/7368/2018 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore. 2. As per the prosecution, on 13/11/2018, during night patrol ,an information was received to the effect that near a hotel on Bicholi Mardana road, in a farmhouse, some persons are consuming liquor. Thereafter the police party made necessary preparations and reached the farmhouse and saw the petitioners consuming liquor and making each other do the same. They were all apprehended and Breath Analyzer Test was conducted upon them from which they were found to have consumed alcohol in more than permissible quantity. Liquor bottles were also recovered from the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid investigation the petitioners have been implicated for the present offence. After completion of the investigation charge sheet has been filed before the Court concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire allegations as levelled by the prosecution against the petitioners even if taken to be true at their face value do not amount to commission of any offence by them. They are alleged to have been drinking together in a farmhouse. However, there is no allegation that they were doing the same for the purpose of profit or gain either for themselves or for any third person. Merely because the petitioners had consumed liquor it could not be said that they have committed any offence. The farmhouse by itself could not have been termed to be a common drinking-house hence there was no necessity for obtaining any license prior to consuming liquor therein. It is hence submitted that the entire proceedings against the petitioners deserve to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State submits that there is sufficient material available on record against the petitioners for charging them for the offences for which they have been charged, in view of which the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary. 6. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary. 6. Section 36-A and 36-B of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 reads as under :- "36-A. Penalty for opening, keeping or using any place as a common drinking house or for having care, management or control of, or for assisting in conducting, business of any such place.-Whoever, in contravention of this Act, or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or given thereunder, or of any licence permit or pass granted under this Act,- (a) opens, keeps or use any place as a common drinking-house; or (b) has the care, management or control of, or in any manner assists in conducting the business of any place opened, kept or used as a common drinking house; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which shall not be less than two hundred rupees but which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. 36-B. Penalty for being found drunk or for purpose of drinking in a common drinking-house.- Whoever, in contravention of this Act or rule or notification or any order made, issued or given thereunder, or of any licence, permit or pass granted under this Act, is found drunk or drinking in a common drinking-house or is found there present for the purpose of drinking shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees and any person found in a common drinking-house during any drinking therein shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have been there for the purpose of drinking." 7. For the purpose of attracting both the aforesaid provisions, the consumption of liquor has to be done in a Common drinking house which has been defined in Section 2(4) of the Act, 1915 as under :- "2(4) "Common drinking-house" means a place where drinking of liquor is allowed for the profit or gain of the person owning, occupying, using, keeping or having the care or management or control of such place, whether by way of charge for the use of the place, or for drinking facilities provided, or otherwise howsoever;" 8. A place can be termed to be a common drinking-house only when drinking of liquor is allowed therein for profit or gain of the person owning occupying, using, keeping or having the care, management or control of such place. Thus the sine qua non for a place to be termed as a common drinking- house is motive of earning profit or gain. In absence thereof any place where liquor is consumed by any number of persons either separately or commonly cannot be termed to be a common drinking-house. As a necessary corollary if any consumption of liquor is done at that place, the offence under Section 36-A and 36-B of the Act, 1915 would not be attracted. 9. In the present case, there is no allegation whatsoever that the petitioners were consuming liquor in the farmhouse by making or receiving any payment either amongst themselves or to or from any third person or that they had charged anyone amongst themselves for consumption of liquor at that place or had paid someone else for the said purpose. In the entire charge sheet there is no whisper that drinking of liquor in the farmhouse was being done for profit or gain of any person including the petitioners or the owner, occupier or the person having the care or management of such farmhouse. Thus the essential ingredients for terming the farmhouse to be a common drinking-house are wholly absent in view of which invocation of Section 36-A and 36-B of the Act, 1915 is also wholly misplaced. 10. Even if the entire allegations as levelled by the prosecution against the petitioners are taken to be true at their face value, then also the offences for which they have been charged are not made out. The continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would be a gross abuse of process of law and wastage of precious time of the Court. The proceedings thus deserve to be quashed. 11. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.0536 dated 13/11/2018, registered at police station - Kanadia, District Indore for offences punishable under Sections 36-A and 36-B of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and consequent charge sheet dated 15/11/2018 bearing case No.RCT/7368/2018 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore against the petitioners are hereby quashed. The petition is accordingly disposed off. C.c. as per rules.