Karnataka High Court
Basavaraju G vs State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4732 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJU G
S/O GANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT 4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN
VIDYANAGAR GUBBI TOWN
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRASANNA D.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NEW EXTN POLICE
TUMAKURU - 572 101.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
S.C.NO.5/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND S.J., TUMKURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE
UNDER SECTIONS 3, 4, 7, OF ITP ACT AND SECTIONS 370,
2
370(2), 370A(2) R/W 34 OF IPC IN RESPECT TO
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IS CONCERN.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by accused No.3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint which is registered in Crime No.0109/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 370, 370(2), 370A(2), and 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and said proceedings now pending in S.C.No.5/2017 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru.
2. Facts in brief are: Tumakuru New Extension Police, registered a case against petitioner and two others on the basis of complaint lodged by the Circle Inspector of Police, Tumakuru, on the allegation that owners of the house situated at 4th Main Road, 4th Cross, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Batawadi, Tumakuru, had leased said building to one Sri Umesh and Smt.Nandini, accused Nos.1 and 2 and they had 3 indulged in running a brothel by engaging the services of one Smt. Ranjitha. On the basis of said complaint, Sub-Inspector of Police, New Extnsion, conducted a raid on said house on 28.9.2016 and arrested accused persons including petitioner who was said to be a customer at said brothel house. Subsequently, on completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed by Sub-Inspector of Police.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for petitioner and accused No.3 and also learned SPP appearing in this case.
4. It is the contention of Sri.Prasanna D.P., appearing for petitioner that only ground on which petitioner had been apprehended was he was found in the said premises when raid was conducted and he had participated in soliciting several favours from accused Nos.1 and 2 and even if petitioner being customer as alleged by prosecution is to be accepted as true, the alleged offences under Sections 3, 4 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and Section 370 of 4 IPC are not attracted. He has also contended that mandatory requirement of Section 13 of ITP Act is not complied before registering case and investigation has been conducted by an Officer who is not competent under Section 13(2) of ITP Act. Hence, he seeks for quashing of the proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner has also relied upon the orders passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.12.2015 passed in W.P.No.56504/2015 and Criminal Petition No.7110/2011 and also the order dated 18.12.2015 passed in Criminal Petition No.7056/2015 and also the order passed in Criminal Petition No.5808/2016 dated 18.11.2016.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and on perusal of orders relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and the factual aspects as obtained in the present case it would disclose that prosecution has relied upon the presence of the petitioner accused at the place where the raid was conducted alleging that he was a 5 customer at a brothel house and was indulged in said act at the said premises where prostitution was run. There is no material placed to show that petitioner accused was involved in committing the alleged offence. That apart, charge sheet filed would disclose that investigation has been conducted by Sub-Inspector of Police, New Extension Police Station, Tumkur. Sub-Section(2) of Section 3 of the ITP Act mandates that investigation for the alleged offence insofar as offences under Sections 3, 4 and 7 of the ITP Act are concerned, is to be conducted by an Officer not below the rank of Inspector. In the instant case, investigation is conducted by Sub-Inspector of Police.
7. However, insofar as the offence of IPC alleged against the petitioner accused is concerned, as already observed hereinabove it cannot be said that prosecution had placed prima facie material as against the petitioner to show his involvement in committing the alleged offence. Hence, continuation of the proceedings insofar as the petitioner is 6 concerned would be an abuse of process of law and it would not sub-serve the ends of justice.
8. Hence I proceed to pass the following ORDER:
i) Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.
ii) Criminal proceedings pending in S.C.No.5/2017 before VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 7 of ITP Act and under Sections 370, 370(2), 370A(2) R/W Section 34 of IPC is hereby quashed insofar as petitioner only. IA No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration and it stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE alb/ap