Karnataka High Court
Shareef vs State Of Karnataka on 21 March, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 2671
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRL.P.No.8394/2017
BETWEEN:
SHAREEF
S/O FAKRU BEARY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR KAIKAMBA MASJID,
KEYYUR VILLAGE, MADAVU,
PUTTUR TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT-574 234. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI LETHIF B, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SURATHKAL POLICE STATION,
D.K. DISTRICT,
REP BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. POLICE SUB - INSPECTOR
SURATHKAL POLICE STATION,
SURATHKAL,
DAKSHINA KANNADA
DISTRICT-574 158. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RACHAIAH, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER)
2
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN
C.C.No.730/2013 (CRIME No.31/2008) OF SURATHKAL
POLICE STATION, D.K. DISTRICT, ON THE FILE OF THE
J.M.F.C (II COURT), MANGALURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Petitioner (accused No.2) has been arraigned as such in C.C. No.730/2013, which is pending on the file of JMFC (II Court), Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 8(b) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, 'the ITP Act') and for quashing of the said proceedings, petitioner is before this Court.
3. Heard Sri Lethif B., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rachaiah, learned High Court 3 Government Pleader, appearing for respondents. Perused the records.
4. A complaint came to be lodged by the second respondent on 29.02.2008 alleging that when he was on patrol duty, he received a credible information that one Mr. Hassan of Khana was carrying on prostitution and as such, a raid came to be conducted and found two persons and a woman in the room carrying on prostitution. As such, four persons, who were present at the spot, were arrested and F.I.R., came to be registered against them in Crime No.31/2008 and on completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against petitioner and three others in C.C. No.2169/2008 for the offences aforestated. On account of the fact that petitioner (accused No.2) was absconding, split up charge sheet was filed against petitioner and other accused persons viz., accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 came to be tried by the jurisdictional 4 Magistrate and after full-fledged trial, by judgment dated 13.10.2014, accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 came to be acquitted.
5. A perusal of the judgment dated 13.10.2014 would disclose that charge levelled against the petitioner is identical and same as that of the charge made against accused No.3, namely, Srinath. According to prosecution, accused No.3, Srinath, was a customer soliciting prostitution. This Court has consistently held that customers in a brothel present at the time of raid cannot be charged for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 8(b) of the ITP Act. Even otherwise, in the instant case, the charge against the petitioner being identical and similar to the charge levelled against accused No.3 and he (accused No.3) having been acquitted after a full-fledged trial, continuation of prosecution against petitioner would not subserve the 5 ends of justice and it would be an abuse of process of law.
6. In that view of the matter, petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C. No.730/2013 before the JMFC., (II Court), Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 8(b) of the Immoral (Prevention) Act, 1956, is hereby quashed and petitioner is acquitted of said offences.
(iii) I.A.I/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration and same is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma