Karnataka High Court
Smt. Prema W/O Basavaraj Soragavi vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10488
CRL.P No. 101635 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101635 OF 2024 (482)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PREMA W/O BASAVARAJ SORAGAVI
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. HULYAL, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT, NOW AT BACKSIDE OF GOGTE
COLLEGE, HOSTEL, 2ND CROSS,
NEAR SAKHARE MESS, TILAKWADI,
BELAGAVI 590006, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SACHCHIDANAND BABAJI PATIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH IO TILAKWADI PS,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD
Digitally signed
by MANJANNA 2. SRI PARASHURAM S PUJERI
E AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. POLICE OFFICER,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/O. TILAKWADI PS, GURUWAR PETH,
KARNATAKA TILAKWADI, TQ. BELAGAVI,
DIST. BELAGAVI 590006.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC
NO.4120/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV JMFC, BELAGAVI,
ARISING OUT OF TILAKWADI P.S. CR.NO.97/2023 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 3,4, 5 OF THE IMMORAL TRAFFIC
(PREVENTION) ACT, 1956 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10488
CRL.P No. 101635 of 2024
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.4120/2023 pending on the file of the IV JMFC, Belagavi ariging out of Crime No.97/2023 of Tilakwadi Police Station, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 ("ITP Act" for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, who is the Police Inspector of Tilakwadi had received a credible information that prostitution being carried out in the house of accused situated at Ranade road, 2nd cross, near Sakhare Mess, Belagavi and therefore, after obtaining prior permission of ACP, Belagavi, the first informant raided said house alongwith panchas and his sub staff. It was found that prostitution was practiced in the house of accused and therefore, the spot mahazar was conducted in the presence of CW2 Aravind and CW3 Manju. Alongwith accused and seized articles, the first informant returned to the Police Station and lodged his -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10488 CRL.P No. 101635 of 2024 complaint which came to be registered by the SHO i.e., PSI of Tilakwadi Police Station for the aforesaid offences at 05:45 p.m. on 10.10.2023. Taking exception to the same, the accused preferred this petition to quash the entire proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the PSI of Tilakwadi Police Station or Police Inspector, who conducted the raid were not having any authority since there is no such designation of these Police Officers as a Special Police Officers, as required under Section 13 of the ITP Act. The mandatory provisions of Section 15 of the ITP Act are also not followed by the Investigating Officer and therefore, on both these grounds the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are not sustainable in law.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that there is no such notification by the Government which empowers the Circle Inspector of Police to be a Special Officer as required under Section 2(i) and 13 of the ITP Act. However, he submits that irregularity in registering the case cannot be a ground to quash the entire proceedings. It is submitted that the reason as to why the Investigating Officer could not take women, as required under Section 15 of the Act can only be ascertained at -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10488 CRL.P No. 101635 of 2024 the time of trial and therefore, it cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Hanmanth vs. The State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.201645/2023 dated 10.04.2024; Dharmanna vs. The State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.200915/2023 dated 18.07.2023; Shri. Rajath vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.101975/2021 dated 16.02.2022, Mr. Praveen Kumar M.S. vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.1398/2017 dated 28.03.2022 and contended that the provisions of Section 15(2) of the ITP Act are mandatory in nature and that in the absence of any notification to show that the Investigating Officer was a Special Police Officer within the definition of 2(i) of the ITP Act, the investigating is not sustainable in law.
7. In the case of Dharmanna vs. The State of Karnataka, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in para 6 and 7, as stated as below:
"6. Section 13 of the Act specifies that, there shall be for each area to be specified by the State Government in this behalf a special police officer -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10488 CRL.P No. 101635 of 2024 appointed by or on behalf of that Government, for dealing with offences under this Act in that area.
7. Clause (2) of Section 13 of the Act specifies that, the special police officer shall not be below the rank of an Inspector of Police. In the instant case, though the raid was conducted by the Police Inspector, however, he has not been designated as special police officer to deal with the offence under this Act in that area by the State Government. Hence, conducting of the raid, and registration of the FIR by the Police Inspector is one without authority of law."
8. In the case of Shri.Rajath vs. The State of Karnataka, after going through the provisions of Section 14, Section 2 and various other provisions of law, in para 11, it was observed as below:
"11. The present proceeding is instituted pursuant to a complaint registered by the Assistant Sub- Inspector to the Police Inspector of Gokul Road Police Station. It is an undisputed fact that the informant/complainant is not the Special Police Officer in terms of the aforequoted statute. Thus, the very proceeding that is initiated against the petitioner is based upon a complaint, complainant of which had no jurisdiction. Therefore, the proceedings would stand -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10488 CRL.P No. 101635 of 2024 vitiated on account of it being in violation of the afore- quoted mandate of the statute."
9. In the case of Mr. Praveen Kumar M.S. vs. State of Karnataka, this Court has observed that the provisions of Section 15(2) of the ITP Act are mandatory in nature and the reading party shall accompanied by a women and another pancha shall be a person from the locality. In para 7 and 8 of the order, it was observed as below:
"7. Section 15(2) of the ITP Act reveals that atleast one of the witness shall be a respectable women from the said locality at the time of search seizure, but, that was not done by the police officer. Thereby, there is a gross violation of Section 15(2) of the ITP Act. That apart, the learned counsel produces notification of the Government of Karnataka dated 02.08.2008 wherein it states that who will be the officer for investigation under the ITP Act, Section 13 of the Act states that where not below the rank of Inspector of police is permitted to investigate the matter.
8. Here in this case, the Police Inspector who registered the complaint and handed over the same to the Sub-Inspector of Police for investigating is also violation of provisions of Section 13 of the Act which is also abuse of the process of the law. Such -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10488 CRL.P No. 101635 of 2024 being the case, allowing the police to investigate the matter is nothing but the abuse of the process of the law. Hence, the FIR is liable to be quashed."
10. It is evident that the provisions of Section 2(i) of ITP Act lay down that only a Special Police Officer is empowered to investigate the matter. It appears that there is no such notification issued by the Government wherein a Police Officer of the rank of the Circle Inspector of Police/Police Inspector or Dy.S.P. of the Police Stations are the Special Police Officers within the meaning of 2(i) of the ITP Act. In the absence of any such powers conferred upon the Police Officers, it cannot be said that the Police Inspectors of all the Police Stations are the Special Police Officers within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the ITP Act.
11. So also, it is evident that in the case on hand the investigating officer had not taken a woman along with the raiding party for the purpose of raid. Section 12(2) of the Act is mandatory in nature. There cannot be any doubt that in the absence of any averments in the mahazar that no woman was available or no person of the locality was available, such a raid cannot be permitted to the basis of any prosecution. Hence, it is evident that continuation of the present proceedings would -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10488 CRL.P No. 101635 of 2024 be nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The proceedings in C.C. No.4120/2023 pending on the file of IV JMFC, Belagavi arising out of Crime No.97/2023 of Tilakwadi Police Station, Belagavi for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, is hereby quashed.
Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE RSH/CT-AN LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 51