Karnataka High Court
Mr. Raj Kumar Sinha vs State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2017
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF JANUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5313 OF 2014
Between:
Mr.Raj Kumar Sinha
S/o. Ram Kumar
Aged about 40 years
Residing at No.2/1, Lang Ford Road
Shanthinagar
Bangalore - 560 025.
...Petitioner
(By Shri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, Advocate)
And:
1. State of Karnataka
By Ashok Nagar Police Station
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Buildings
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. H. Siddappa
Dy. S.P. C.A. Squad
C.I.D., Bangalore - 560 001.
...Respondents
(By Shri. B. Visweswaraiah, H.C.G.P. for R-1 and 2)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.
No.183/2014 (Crime No.87/2012) Ashoknagar P.S.,
Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections
3, 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,
pending on the file of the I M.M.T.C., Mayohall,
Bangalore, and allow the petition.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Though this petition is for orders on an application for early hearing, it is pointed out that the petition could be disposed of on a short point.
The learned Government Pleader does not dispute this legal position.
2. The background of the case is as follows:
One Mr.H.Siddappa, Deputy S.P., C.A. Squad, C.I.D. has lodged a complaint alleging that on 18.02.2012 at about 3.00 P.M. he had received credible information that in Hotel Milan Residency, situated at 3 No.44/6, Residency Road, Bangalore, there was activity of immoral trafficking of women. Therefore, he is said to have proceeded along with his staff and other witnesses to the spot and sent one Veeresh Jadar, as a decoy to verify whether there was any such activity going on in the hotel, by providing him with Rs.2,000/- and instructing him to call him back on the Cell Phone and disconnect, which would be the signal for the waiting raiding person to move in. After ten minutes it transpires that a call was received by the complainant on his Cell Phone which was from the decoy and immediately he along with his staff are said to have entered the lodge and searched several rooms and that they found six men and five women, including the petitioner to be present. On enquiry it was found that, they were indulging in sex and the women were living on the earning of prostitution and therefore a mahazar was drawn up and incriminating materials such as Cell 4 Phones, cash and condoms was recovered from the spot and all the materials were brought to the Ashok Nagar police station along with the accused and necessary action followed.
3. It is the petitioner's case that, he is absolutely innocent. The said Milan Residency no doubt was a lodge, but also had a bar and restaurant and the petitioner was in the restaurant having his lunch when the raid was conducted and the mere presence of the petitioner in the hotel had led to his arrest. He was not with any woman in any room etc., In any event, the case is pending before the Court below.
4. The primary contention in the present petition is that, under Section 13(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, there is a Special Officer to deal with offences under the Act in terms of sub-Section 2 of Section 13 and such Special Officer shall not be below 5 the rank of Inspector of Police. In the present case on hand, CW-16 Lakshmi Devi, who has done the initial investigation and CW-17 Chandrakala M.B. who completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the petitioner are both Police Sub-Inspectors and were below the rank of Inspector of Police and they cannot be construed as Special Officers as contemplated under the Act, who could deal with such offences. Hence, the entire proceedings are illegal and are vitiated.
5. In this regard, reliance is placed on two decisions of this Court namely; M. Rajeshwari Vs State reported in 2001(5) KLJ 532 and Shankare Gowda @ Shankara Vs. State and another reported in Criminal Petition No.5330/2015 dated 3.2.2016, wherein in similar circumstances when the investigation and filing of the charge sheet is not by a Special Police Officer not 6 below the rank of Inspector of police, it has been held that the proceedings are vitiated and accordingly, the proceedings have been quashed in those two cases.
6. Following the said case law and the mandate under Section 13 of the Act, the present proceedings initiated against the petitioner are vitiated and therefore the proceedings pending in C.C.No.183/2014 on the file of I M.M.T.C., Mayohall, Bangalore, stands quashed, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
The Criminal Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AP