Karnataka High Court
Ramesh S/O. Sheenappa Shetty vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8885
CRL.P No. 102762 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102762 OF 2025
(482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
RAMESH S/O. SHEENAPPA SHETTY,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MANAGER OF HOTEL
ASHWINI LODGE, BAR AND RESTAURANT, BILAGI CROSS,
BILAGI, R/O. 2-342, BELOOR HOUSE, PADUKERE MANOOR,
KOTA UDUPI, TQ AND DIST. UDUPI-576221, PRESENT
ADDRESS AT HOTEL ASHWINI LODGE, BAR AND RESTAURANT
BILAGI CROSS, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587116.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AVINASH M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BILAGI POLICE STATION,
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011.
2. HANAMANT B. SANAMANI,
Digitally AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: POLICE OFFICER,
signed by
RAKESH S R/O. BILAGI POLICE STATION, TQ. BILAGI AND DISTRICT.
HARIHAR
Location: BAGALKOT, KARNATAKA, PIN CODE-587116,
High Court of
Karnataka, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Dharwad
Bench HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. (U/S.528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND
QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR IN CRIME NO.0107/2025 REGISTERED BY
BILAGI POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE BEFORE THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, (SENIOR DIVISION) BILAGI FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3, 4, 5, 6 OF
IMMORAL TRAFFIC PREVENTION ACT-1956 IN RESPECT OF THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 HEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8885
CRL.P No. 102762 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
1. Heard Sri. Avinash M. Angadi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Abhishek Mallipatil, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.) / Section 528 of Bharatiya naragika Surkha Sanhit, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS') to quash the complaint and FIR in Crime No.107/2025 registered by Bilagi Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Bilagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 ("ITP Act" for short) in respect of petitioner/accused No.1.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
On 13.06.2025, at around 4:00 p.m., the de facto complainant received credible information that the manager/petitioner has been involved in immoral trafficking activities at Hotel Ashwini Lodge Bar and Restaurant, Bilagi -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8885 CRL.P No. 102762 of 2025 HC-KAR Cross, near NH 218, Bilagi. After obtaining permission from his higher authorities, the first informant, along with panchas and his sub-staff, raided the lodge. It was discovered that prostitution was being practiced at the lodge by the accused. A spot mahazar was then conducted in the presence of the panchas, and various articles were seized. The de facto complainant returned to the police station and lodged a complaint, which was subsequently registered by the SHO (PSI) of Bilagi Police Station for the aforementioned offences. In response to this, the accused filed this petition seeking to quash the entire proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Police Inspector of Bilagi, Police Station, who conducted the raid were not having any authority since there is no such designation of these Police Officers as a Special Police Officers, as required under Section 13 of the ITP Act. The mandatory provisions of Section 15 of the ITP Act are also not followed by the Investigating Officer and therefore, on both these grounds the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are not sustainable in law.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8885 CRL.P No. 102762 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that there is no such notification by the Government which empowers the Circle Inspector of Police to be a Special Officer as required under Section 2(i) and 13 of the ITP Act. However, he submits that irregularity in registering the case cannot be a ground to quash the entire proceedings. It is submitted that the reason as to why the Investigating Officer could not take women, as required under Section 15 of the Act, can only be ascertained at the time of trial and therefore, it cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of SMT.PREMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAK AND ANOTHER disposed on 24.07.2024 in Crl.P.No.101635/2024 passed by this Court contending that the prevision of Section 15(2) of the ITP Act are mandatory in nature and that in the absence of any notification to show that the Investigating Officer was a Special Police Officer within the definition of 2(i) of the ITP Act, the investigating is not sustainable in law.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8885 CRL.P No. 102762 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. In the case of DHARMANNA VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in para 6 and 7, as stated as below:
"6. Section 13 of the Act specifies that, there shall be for each area to be specified by the State Government in this behalf a special police officer appointed by or on behalf of that Government, for dealing with offences under this Act in that area.
7. Clause (2) of Section 13 of the Act specifies that, the special police officer shall not be below the rank of an Inspector of Police. In the instant case, though the raid was conducted by the Police Inspector, however, he has not been designated as special police officer to deal with the offence under this Act in that area by the State Government. Hence, conducting of the raid, and registration of the FIR by the Police Inspector is one without authority of law."
8. In the case of SHRI.RAJATH VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, after going through the provisions of Section 14, Section 2 and various other provisions of law, in para 11, it was observed as below:
"11. The present proceeding is instituted pursuant to a complaint registered by the Assistant Sub-Inspector to the Police Inspector of Gokul Road Police Station. It is an -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8885 CRL.P No. 102762 of 2025 HC-KAR undisputed fact that the informant/complainant is not the Special Police Officer in terms of the aforequoted statute. Thus, the very proceeding that is initiated against the petitioner is based upon a complaint, complainant of which had no jurisdiction. Therefore, the proceedings would stand vitiated on account of it being in violation of the afore- quoted mandate of the statute."
9. In the case of MR. PRAVEEN KUMAR M.S. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, this Court has observed that the provisions of Section 15(2) of the ITP Act are mandatory in nature and the reading party shall accompanied by a women and another pancha shall be a person from the locality. In para 7 and 8 of the order, it was observed as below:
"7. Section 15(2) of the ITP Act reveals that atleast one of the witness shall be a respectable women from the said locality at the time of search seizure, but, that was not done by the police officer. Thereby, there is a gross violation of Section 15(2) of the ITP Act. That apart, the learned counsel produces notification of the Government of Karnataka dated 02.08.2008 wherein it states that who will be the officer for investigation under the ITP Act, Section 13 of the Act states that where not below the rank of Inspector of police is permitted to investigate the matter.
8. Here in this case, the Police Inspector who registered the complaint and handed over the same to the Sub-Inspector of Police for investigating is also violation of -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8885 CRL.P No. 102762 of 2025 HC-KAR provisions of Section 13 of the Act which is also abuse of the process of the law. Such being the case, allowing the police to investigate the matter is nothing but the abuse of the process of the law. Hence, the FIR is liable to be quashed."
10. It is evident that the provisions of Section 2(i) of ITP Act lay down that only a Special Police Officer is empowered to investigate the matter. It appears that there is no such notification issued by the Government wherein a Police Officer of the rank of the Circle Inspector of Police/Police Inspector or Dy.S.P. of the Police Stations are the Special Police Officers within the meaning of 2(i) of the ITP Act. In the absence of any such powers conferred upon the Police Officers, it cannot be said that the Police Inspectors of all the Police Stations are the Special Police Officers within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the ITP Act.
11. So also, it is evident that in the case on hand the investigating officer had not taken a woman along with the raiding party for the purpose of raid. Section 12(2) of the Act is mandatory in nature. There cannot be any doubt that in the absence of any averments in the mahazar that no woman was available or no person of the locality was available, such a raid -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8885 CRL.P No. 102762 of 2025 HC-KAR cannot be permitted to the basis of any prosecution. Hence, it is evident that continuation of the present proceedings would be nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The proceedings Crime No.107/2025 of Bilagi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, is hereby quashed.
Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed off.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AC /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35