Karnataka High Court
Sri Roopendra Singh vs State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.312/2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ROOPENDRA SINGH,
S/O. ARPAAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.13/17,
5TH B MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK,
NEW EXTENSION LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 068.
2. SRI GULAB SINGH,
S/O SAJJAN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.12, SLV COMPLEX,
ANANTHNAGAR MAIN ROAD,
ULSOOR GATE,
BENGALURU-560 100.
3. SRI JASVEER SINGH,
S/O MAAN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.203,
EAST MOON NAGARA,
AMBARISH SAR,
PUNJAB GRAND HOTEL,
BENGALURU-560 022.
4. SRI DR. KAMALAVEER SINGH,
S/O RAGHUVEER SINGH,
2
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT No.113, JRDC, BATLA,
PUNJAB - 143 505. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NATARAJ D, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SRI M.H. SATISH,
POLICE INSPECOTR,
LADIES AND NARCOTICS SQUID CCB,
BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R-1,
R-2 IS SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR (ANNEXURE-A)
BEARING No.611/2014 (C.C.NO.10669/2015) NOW
RENUMBERED AS S.C.NO.19/2017 ALONG WITH THE
INFORMATION DATED 28.08.2014 REGISTERED WITH THE
RESPONDENT KORAMANGALA P.S., AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
WHO ARE ACCUSED No.42, 43, 44 AND 49 FOR ALLEGED
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 188, 370(3), 370A
AND 294 READ WITH SECTION 109 OF IPC AND OFFENCE
UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT PENDING
BEFORE THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CCH-72.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.10669/2015 renumbered as S.C.No.19/2017 of Koramangala Police Station, Bengaluru pending on the file of the LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 188, 370(3), 370(A), 294 read with Section 109 of IPC and Section 35 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 in so far as the same relates to the petitioners.
2. This Court has already quashed the proceedings against accused No.38 in Crl.P.No.5539/2018 dated 28.08.2018 and in this case the petitioners are the customers.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the Police Inspector, Women and Narcotic Drugs Squad, CCB, N.T. Pet, Bengaluru lodged information before the respondent Koramangala Police Station, Bengaluru alleging that on 27.08.2014, at about 7.30.00 p.m., the informant received credible information that accused No.1-owner and Managing 4 Director of 'M/s. Ashoka Residency' situated at No.37, 6th Block, Patel Narayanareddy Layout, Bengaluru with an intention to make unlawful gain had trafficked women from another State and had been appointed them as waitresses to the hotel customers. On receiving the credible information, the respondent Police along with the staff and panchas conducted a raid on M/s. Ashoka Residency and arrested accused No.1 and other accused and the customers namely, the petitioners herein.
4. On the basis of the above information, FIR came to be registered against accused No.1 and 47 other accused persons and after investigation, charge-sheet was laid against 49 accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 370(A), 370(3) and 294 read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code and Section 35 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.
5. The petitioners have raised two fold contentions:- 5
(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 insofar as the offence under Section 370(3) of IPC is concerned. The allegations thereof relate to accused No.1 and other accused persons.
6. 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.Nos.7110/2011, 7056/2014, 9682/2016, 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 v. STATE OF ANDHRA 6 PRADESH reported in 2015(3) Crimes 281 (A.P.) on these points.
7. 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 accused Nos.42, 43, 44 and 49 in the above crime is that they were present at the spot during the raid, indicating that they were the customers who had gone to the spot.
8. The allegations made against the petitioners and the material collected against the petitioners do not show the commission of any of the offences alleged against them in the FIR and charge-sheet and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are contrary to the decision in the case of GIRISHCHANDRA v. STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE reported in ILR 2013 KAR 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.
7
9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings insofar as the petitioners are concerned in C.C.No.10669/2015 renumbered as S.C.No.19/2017 pending on the file of the LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD