Karnataka High Court
Sri Pravesh Chatri vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2016
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5808/2016
BETWEEN:
Sri Pravesh Chatri
S/o Sri Thara Chatri
Aged about 21 years
R/at No.1
Jasma Mandir
Opp. BDA Complex
Yareppa Garden
Austin Town
Bangalore-560 056. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri Mohan Kumar D, Adv.)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
By Commercial Street Police Station
Pulakeshi Nagar City Sub-Division
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru-560 001. ...RESPONDENT
2
(By Sri B Visweswaraiah, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the complaint and FIR in
Cr.No.55/2016 for the offences punishable under
Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act, 1956 and Section 370
of IPC registered the respondent police pending before
the 11th A.C.M.M. Court, Mayohall, Bangalore.
This Criminal Petition coming on for final hearing
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the complaint and FIR in Crime No.55/2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the ITP Act, 1956 and under Section 370 of IPC registered in respondent - police station Crime No.55/2016.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the police have registered a case against the petitioner and others on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Police 3 Inspector on the allegation that the owner and the workers of the Blossom Massage Parlour were illegally doing massage to attract the customers sexually and getting huge amount from the customers.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.6 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that although according to the prosecution case petitioner was found at the said place, he went there as a customer and even if it is taken as true, the alleged offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the ITP Act and Section 370 of IPC are not attracted in the case. Learned counsel also submitted that the mandatory requirements of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 are not at all 4 complied with before registering the case. In this regard, the learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to sub-Sections (2) and (5) of Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, which reads as under:-
"15. Search without warrant:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, whenever the special police officer (or the trafficking police officer, as the case may be,) has reasonable grounds for believing that an offence punishable under this Act has been or is being committed in respect of a (person) living in any premises, and that search of the premises with warrant cannot be made without undue delay, such officer may, after recording the grounds of his belief, enter and search such premises without a warrant.
(2) Before making a search under sub-
section (1), the special police officer (or the trafficking police officer, as the case may be) shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants (at least one of whom shall be a woman) of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate, to attend and witness the search, and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do:
5
(Provided that the requirement as to the respectable inhabitants being from the locality in which the place to be searched is situate shall not apply to a woman required to attend and witness the search).
(5) The special police officer (or the trafficking police officer, as the case may be, after removing (the person) under sub-
section (4) shall forthwith produce (him) before the appropriate magistrate." Accordingly, he has submitted that in the case on hand, the respondent has not at all called the respectable women inhabitant of that locality to witness the place of search. It is also the contention of the counsel for petitioner-accused No.6 that the Special Police Officer or the Trafficking Police Officer as the case may be, after removing the person under Sub-Section (4) shall forthwith produce him before the appropriate Magistrate and no such steps were taken by the police for producing them before the Magistrate. 6
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the orders of this Court dated 17.12.2015 passed in W.P.No.56504/2015 and Crl.P.No.7110/2011 and also to the order dated 18.12.2015 passed in Crl.P.No.7056/2014, so also, to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 22.3.2013 rendered in Crl.P.No.1786/2013 and batch matters.
6. I have perused the orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so also, the factual aspects of the case as pleaded in the petition and also the FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case.
7. Looking to these materials placed on record, they prima facie show that petitioner went to the said place for the purpose of massage as a customer and it cannot be said that prosecution has placed prima facie 7 material as against the petitioner to show his involvement in committing the alleged offences. Hence, the prosecution initiated as against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of Court.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioner in Crime No.55/2016 of the respondent-police station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the ITP Act, 1956 and for the offence under Section 370 of IPC are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp