Karnataka High Court
Sri. Nithin Shetty vs State Of Karnataka on 7 August, 2018
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
WRIT PETITION Nos.20307-20310 OF 2018
(GM-RES)
Between:
1. Sri Nithin Shetty
S/o Sadhandha,
Aged about 26 years,
Flat No-106, B.R Enclev Apartment,
B-Block, Singasandra, Bengaluru-560 068.
2. Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav,
S/o B.S Yadav,
Aged about 35 years,
No-03, 14th Cross, Channappana halli,
Main Road, Bengaluru - 560 037.
3. Sri Venkata,
S/o Lakshmi Kanth,
Aged about 36 years,
No-52, Goni Shetty Palya, Electronic City,
Bengaluru - 560 100.
4. Sri Santhosh,
S/o Late Jai Narayana,
Aged about 42 years,
No-201, Parvathi, Pune city,
Maharastra - 411 030. ...Petitioners
(By Sri Bharath Kumar V, Advocate)
2
And:
1. State of Karnataka
Though Station House Officer
Airport Police Station,
Bengaluru-560 017.
2. Police Inspector,
Central Crime Branch,
(Woman and Narcotic Squad)
N T Pet
Bengaluru-560 002. ...Respondents
(By Sri S.Rachaiah, HCGP)
These Writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code praying to quash the FIR,
written information, charge sheet and the entire
proceedings in FIR bearing Crime No.152/2014 dated
05.12.2014, now registered as C.C.No.54125/2015
registered for the alleged offences under Sections 370(3),
370(A), 188, 294 read with 109 of I.P.C., pending on the
file of the Hon'ble X Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, enclosed and marked as
Annexure-A, B, C, D and etc.,
These Writ petitions coming on for Preliminary
hearing in 'B' Group, this day, the court made the
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the FIR and final report in Cr.No.152/2014 of Airport Police Station pending on the 3 file of the X Additional, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mayo Hall, Bangalore City for the offences punishable under sections 370(3), 370(A), 188, 294 read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 4 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 in so far as the same relates to the petitioners/accused Nos. 22, 28, 36 and 38.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
The second respondent -Police Inspector, Central Crime Branch, (Woman and Narcotic Squad), N.T.Pet, Bengaluru lodged information before the first respondent Airport Police Station, Bengaluru alleging that on 04.12.2014 at about 11:10 p.m., the informant received credible information that accused No.1 had been running a prostitution racket by offering few girls to the hotel customers i.e., Cheff-inn-Regency. On receiving the credible information, the first respondent Police along with the staff and panchas conducted a raid on Cheff-inn-
Regency and petitioners (i.e., accused Nos.22, 28, 36 and 4
38) were arrested along with staff members and customers.
3. On the basis of the above information, FIR came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 47 and after investigation, charge-sheet was laid against 46 accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 370(3), 370(A), 188, 294 read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 4 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (for short "ITP Act, 1956").
4. The petitioners have raised two fold contentions:-
(i) The case of the prosecution, even if accepted to be true, does not satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged in the FIR and the charge-sheet.
(ii) There are no allegations against the petitioners herein in so far as the offence under Section 370(3) of Indian Penal Code. The allegations thereof relate only to accused Nos.1 to 2.5
5. In the course of the argument, in addition to the above grounds, it is argued that the investigation into the alleged incident and the preparation of the panchanama before registration of the FIR is bad in law. In support of the argument, learned counsel has referred to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.54250/2017 wherein this Court while dealing with similar situation has referred to the decisions in Crl.P.No.7110/2011, Crl. P. No. 7056/2014, Crl. P. No. 9682/2016, Crl. P. No. 5808/2016, W.P.No.56504/2015, Crl.P.No.1959/2017 and also the decision rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of GOENKA SAJAN KUMAR vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in 2015(3) Crimes 281 (A.P.) on these points.
6. I have perused the FIR and the orders relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The sole ground on which the petitioners herein are arrayed as the accused in the above crime is that they were present at the spot during the raid, indicating that they were 6 customers who had gone to the spot for massage. The provisions of the ITP Act, 1956 invoked by the first respondent do not get attracted to the facts alleged against the petitioners. Section 3 of the ITP Act, 1956 deal with the punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. Section 4 of the ITP Act, 1956 pertains to punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution. Section 5 of the ITP Act, 1956 refers to procuring, inducing or taking (person) for the sake of prostitution. Section 6 of the ITP Act, 1956 deals about detaining a person in the premises where prostitution is carried out. Section 7 deals with prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places. A person who visits brothel house only as a customer is not covered by any of the above provisions or any other provision of the ITP Act, 1956. In the decisions referred above, in similar fact situation, the proceedings have been quashed solely on that score.
7. The allegations made against the petitioners and the material collected against the petitioners do not 7 show the commission of any of the offences alleged against them in the FIR and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are contrary to the decision in the case of GIRISHCHANDRA VS. STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE reported in ILR 2013 Karnataka 983, and the law laid down in the case of LALITHA KUMARI vs. GOVERNMENT OF U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. For both these reasons, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. The FIR and the charge-sheet in Cr.No.152/2014 on the file of the X Additional, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mayo Hall, Bangalore City, in so far as the petitioners are concerned is hereby quashed.
I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SJK/HA