Karnataka High Court
Mr Irfan Khan @ Irfan vs State Of Karnataka on 22 February, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10270 OF 2021
BETWEEN
MR. IRFAN KHAN @ IRFAN
S/O ISMAIL
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDENT OF HADIGERE VILLAGE
CHINTAMANI TALUK
CHAKKABALLAPUR-563 125.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI JNANESH KUMAR.K , ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP )
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET NO.189/2020
FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.22655/2021, IN CR.NO.189/2020, PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE HON'BLE VII A.C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3,4,5, 7 OF IMMORAL
TRAFFIC PREVENTIONA ACT AND SECTION 370 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings against this petitioner in C.C.No.22655/2021 pending on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru registered by Amruthahalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (for short 'ITP Act') and Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on the credible information, Amruthahalli Police raided the house of accused No.1 at No.42, Venkategowda Layout, Hebbal 3 Kempapura, 3rd Cross, Bengaluru by sending CW.9 as decoy where accused Nos.1 to 3 were present on the spot and on enquiry, it was found that accused No.1 was running brothel, accused No.2 was procuring the customers and accused No.3-present petitioner is said to be the customer who came for prostitution. After registering the case, charge-sheet came to be filed and now, the petitioner is before this Court by challenging the charge-sheet.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is only customer as per the charge-sheet and there is no offence would attract against this petitioner either Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the ITP Act or Section 370 of IPC. Therefore, prayed for quashing the same.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the petition.
4
7. Having heard the arguments, perused the records and on perusal of the charge-sheet, it clearly reveals that accused No.1 is running brothel centre and accused No.2 is said to be procuring the minor girls for prostitution and this petitioner is only 'customer' who came for prostitution, he was caught red handed when the raid was conducted by the Police Officer. Section 3 of the ITP Act provides for punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. Section 4 of the Act provides for punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution and Section 5 of the Act provides for punishment for procuring, inducing or taking a person for the sake of prostitution. This petitioner is only the 'customer' and in view of the provisions having been attracted against the petitioner is not punishable under those Sections. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.2330/2017 in the case of Prasannakumara Vs. The State of Karnataka vide judgment dated 29.06.2020 has quashed the criminal proceedings in similar allegation made against the customers. This Court has also quashed 5 the criminal proceedings in the similar circumstances. Therefore, I am of the view that conduction of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed.
9. The criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3 in C.C.No.22655/2021 pending on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is hereby quashed.
10. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending I.A.No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE GBB