Karnataka High Court
Subashchandra N vs State Of Karnataka By on 13 July, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5074/2017
BETWEEN:
1. SUBASHCHANDRA N
S/O NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.54, APPAREDDYPALYA
INDIRANAGAR II STAGE
BANGALORE-560078.
2. RAGHURAM N
S/O NINGAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NO.8B,
NARAYANAPURA
DOORAVANINAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 016.
3. VENKATASWAMY N
S/O NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.39/25, 7TH MAIN
NEAR AMBEDKAR COLLEGE
APPAREDDYPALYA
INDIRANAGAR II STAGE
BANGALORE-560 078.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B.N. SHIVANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
2
BY J.P. NAGAR POLICE
BANGALORE-78.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANDESH S. CHOUTA, SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS
PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
TO QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.5058/2017 ON THE FILE OF 44TH A.C.M.M,
BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though matter is listed for preliminary hearing by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Sri. B.N.Shivanna, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. Sandesh S. Chouta, learned SPP appearing for respondent-State.
3. On 29.06.2015 the Circle Inspector of J.P.Nagar Police Station lodged a complaint to Sub- Inspector of J.P.Nagar stating that in the afternoon at 2.00 p.m. he received credible information that prostitution activity is being carried out at No.8/186, 4th 3 Main, 9th Cross, K.S.R.T.C. Extension, II Stage, J.P.Nagar, through one Rekha @ Asha, who is said to be running said brothel house and inviting general public. As such a raid came to be conducted and case was registered under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 in Cr.No.405/2015 on 24.06.2015.
4. On conclusion of investigation charge sheet came to be filed by the Police Sub-Inspector, J.P.Nagar Police Station, Annexure-C on 30.06.2015. It is the contention of Sri.Shivanna, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that investigation conducted and filing of charge sheet is by Police Sub-Inspector and as prescribed under Section 13(2) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, such investigation as well as filing of charge sheet could not have been by an Officer below the rank of Inspector. Hence, he has prayed for quashing of proceedings.
5. Said issue is no more res-intigra in view of law laid down by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the 4 case of M. RAJESHWARI vs. STATE OF PSI L & O, KENGERI GATE POLICE reported in 2001 (5) KLJ 532, whereunder it has been held as under:
"3. Looked at in the background of the provisions concerned and the two decisions of the Supreme Court, it is apparent that the offences have been dealt with by the Sub-
Inspector of Police of Kengeri Gate Police Station who is not a Special Police Officer competent to deal with the offences under the Act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act, more so, when he is not of the rank of an Inspector of Police, which would be the minimum condition in view of sub- section (2) of Section 13 of the Act."
6. Charge sheet filed in the instant case before trial Court would also disclose that it has been filed by the Police Sub-Inspector, J.P.Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru and this fact would support the contention of learned counsel appearing for petitioners.
7. In the light of law laid down by this Court as noticed hereinabove and on perusal of charge sheet at Annexure-C disclosing that alleged offence having been investigated by a Police Sub-Inspector, who is below the 5 rank of Inspector and said Officer also having filed charge sheet against the petitioners, proceedings cannot be continued and same is liable to be quashed, since said proceedings would be illegal and no prosecution can be continued on the basis of such defective investigation and report submitted by an Officer, who is below the rank of Inspector. In that view of the matter, proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.20107/2015 on the file of XLIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed insofar as petitioners are concerned.
SD/-
JUDGE DR