Karnataka High Court
Syed Mohamed Parvez vs State Of Karnataka on 11 April, 2023
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
CRL.P No. 2903 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2903 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SYED MOHAMED PARVEZ
S/O SYED ABIB ALI,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
NOW R/AT 632, SHANTHI S K,
11TH CROSS, A BLOCK,
AECS LAYOUT, SINGASANDRA,
KUDLU BEGUR,
BENGALURU-560068
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MURALI M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE,
REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
BHAVANI BAI G
Location: High (BY SRI. B.J. ROHITH, HCGP)
Court of Karnataka
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
THE PETITIONER IN S.C.NO.783/2018 PENDING BEFORE HONBLE
XLV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-46)
BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 3,4,5,7 OF ITP ACT AND SECTIONS 370(3), 370(A)(2) OF
IPC VIDE ANNEXURE A WHICH IS REGISTERED ON THE BASIS
COMPLIANT FILED BY SUB INSPECTOR, AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.P No. 2903 of 2023
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.6 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in S.C.No.783/2018, pending on the file of XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru arising out of Crime No.55/2016 and charge-sheeted 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(3), 370(A)(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the credible information, the Commercial Street Police raided the premises at Green Blossom Massage Parlour, Street No.60, First Floor, Veerapillai Street, Bengaluru, where accused Nos.1 to 7 were said to be involved in the prostitution in the massage centre. The Police raided the spot and seized the cash for Rs.18,100/- and the accused persons have been produced before the Court and released on bail. Subsequently, the charge-sheet has been -3- CRL.P No. 2903 of 2023 filed, case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The present petitioner is shown as accused No.6. He is before the Court by challenging the charge-sheet.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only a customer. None of the provisions of ITP Act attracts and there is a gross violation of the procedure in search and seizure by the Police and on that ground, Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against accused No.6-Parvesh Chatri in crime stage in Crl.P.No.5808/2016 and this petitioner is having same footing, he is also a customer, therefore, prayed for quashing the proceedings against this petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the petition.
6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, it is not disputed that the petitioner or other accused persons were arrested and the said accused persons were produced by the Police and also filed the charge-sheet. The Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused No.6-Parvesh Chatri in -4- CRL.P No. 2903 of 2023 Crl.P.No.5808/2016 on 18/11/2016. The main ground is that the Police while search and seizure have not taken the responsible person and based upon the earlier judgments of this Court in W.P.No.56504/2015 and Crl.P.No.7110/2011 and also Crl.P.No.7056/2014 and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 22.03.2013 rendered in Crl.P.No.1786/2013 and batch matters, the Co-ordinate Bench has quashed the criminal proceedings as against the accused No.6. Though this petitioner is shown as accused No.7 in the FIR, but in the charge-sheet he has shown as accused No.6. The allegation against accused Nos.6 and 7 is one and the same. After the charge-sheet his name was shown as accused No.6 but in the FIR his name is shown as accused No.7. He is said to be a customer and as per the ITP Act, the customers are not liable for any punishment. Therefore, I am of the view, that the criminal proceedings against this petitioner-accused No.6 is liable to be quashed.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.6 is hereby quashed. -5- CRL.P No. 2903 of 2023
8. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending I.A.No.1/2023 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE GBB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55