Karnataka High Court
Shivanna @ Shivu vs State Of Karnataka on 10 April, 2017
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1479 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Shivanna @ Shivu,
S/o Mahadevu,
Aged about 45 years,
No.7 Near Rama Mandir,
Alanahalli, Mysuru City, Mysuru - 592 101.
2. Shivakumar,
S/o Rajegowda,
Aged about 36 years,
No.5563 Karigowda Beedi,
Double Road, Hunsur Town,
Mysuru District, Mysuru - 592 101.
3. Mani @ Manjor,
S/o Srinivas,
Aged about 40 years,
No.2747, Near State Bank Hebbal,
1st Stage, Mysuru City, Mysuru - 592 101.
...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. Harish.H.V. Advocate)
2
AND:
State of Karnataka,
Vijayanagara P.S., Mysuru,
Now represented by its
Public Prosecutor,
High Court Complex
Bengaluru - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(By Shri Vijayakumar Majage, Additional
State Public Prosecutor)
*****
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.75/2016 pending
before the VII Additional District Judge, Mysuru in the above
case.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned State Public Prosecutor is directed to take notice for the respondent.
2. It transpires that on 9.9.2015 at about 6.30 p.m., one Raju, Police Inspector had received credible information about 3 a prostitution racket being carried on in a house near Open air theatre and park in Lakshmikantanagar in Mysore and accordingly, they had conducted a raid on the premises. It transpires that Accused No.1 Manjula was said to have taken the house on rent in collusion with the second accused Ratnamma and was using the premises as a brothel and that they had targeted innocent girls who were forced into prostitution and it is stated that they were soliciting clients for the purpose of prostitution and in the course of the raid, the present petitioners who were arrayed as accused Nos.5 to 7 were termed as 'clients', from whom Accused Nos.1 and 2 had received Rs.1,000/- each. It is further alleged that Accused No.5 was having sex with CW-4 and Accused Nos.6 and 7 were waiting for their turn. Accused Nos.3 and 4 were said to have assisted Accused Nos.1 and 2 in soliciting the victims on the pretext of getting them jobs. All the accused were taken into custody and incriminating material such as cash, mobile phones, condoms, two wheelers and cars were said to have been 4 seized. The offences alleged are under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that none of these sections alleged would applied to the present petitioners. In that, it is pointed out that Section 3 of the Act is a section which provides punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing the premises to be used as a brothel, which would not apply to the petitioners. Nor Section 4 which provides for punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution, nor Section 5 which provides for procuring, inducing or taking a person for the sake of prostitution nor does Section 6 apply which provides to detain a person on the premises where prostitution is carried on. Therefore, none of these sections relate to the alleged conduct of the petitioners and their involvement in the episode. Further, the invocation of Section 370 sub-clause (2) IPC also would not be relevant. Therefore, he submits that the entire proceedings initiated 5 against the petitioners are misconceived and hence seeks that the proceedings be quashed.
4. The learned Government Pleader would not seriously object to the contentions raised.
Hence, the petition is summarily allowed and the proceedings in S.C.No.75/2016 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Mysore, stands quashed.
I.A.1/2017 is disposed of as a consequence.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS