Karnataka High Court
Anjayya Manayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 March, 2019
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100513/2018
BETWEEN:
1. GOLLA ANJAYYA MANAYYA
AGE 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 6-5-64, SELF FINANCE COLONY,
VANASTHALIPURAM, HAYA, HEDRABAD,
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.
2. THIRIVEEDHI JEEVAN PRAKASHT MANIKYAM,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 7-5-1-6, NEHRUNAGAR DHON,
ANDHRA PRADESH KURNOOL,
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.
3. KURUVA SUDHAKAR K. HANUMANTU,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 3/38, VELDURTHI,
ANDHRA PRADESH KURNOOL,
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.
4. MANAGAL PARASHURAM REDDY MANGAL
GOPAL REDDY, AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS, PRESENTLY R/ AT: 2/104,
SOGANOOR COLONY,
AMINANOOR KURNOOL,
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.
5. SELAM SRINIVAS HANUMANTU
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 2-54,
MUSALAIPALLI,
2
TELANGANA, HYDERABAD,
HYDERABAD CITY,
ANDHRAPRADESH STATE.
6. SRINIVASALU BHIMALINGAPPA
AGE 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 9/796, PYAPALI,
MAIN BAZAR, KURNOOL,
ANDHRAPRADESH STATE.
7. BATHULA SUDHAKAR B. SUKANNA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 2-36, CHENUKULAPADU,
VELDURTHI MANDAL,
KUMODKURNOOL,
ANDHRAPRADESH STATE.
8. BAISANI CHANDRAMOHAN B. KRISHNAMURTHI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 10/17, MAIN ROAD,
PEAPALLY, KURNOOL,
UTTARA KANNADA, KARNATAKA.
9. ELLARI ANANDKUMAR NAGASHETTY
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 2-19, PRAGATOOR VILLAGE,
ALLAMPUR MANDAL, MEHABOOBO NAGAR,
HYDERABAD CITY, ANDHRAPRADESH.
10. ENALLA REDDY THAYANNA,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
PRESENTALY RESIDING AT 4-73, B.C. COLONY,
KANAKAVEEDU VILLAGE,
NANDAVARAM, KURNOOL,
ANDHRAPRADESH.
11. JONNALAGADDA HARIKUMAR J. KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSIENSS,
R/O: H.NO.13-29-1A,
PATHA PETA, DHONE, KURNOOL,
ANDHRAPRADESH.
3
12. MADAN MOHAN PULLEPU BHASKAR RAO,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 7-135, NEAR LIBRARY,
TADEPALLI, GUNTUR, ANDHRAPRADESH.
13. BOGGURU THIRUMALA RAMREDDY
BOGGURU, AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 5/20, B.C. COLONY,
T-SOMALAGUDUR,
NANDAVARAM, KURNOOL,
ANDHRAPRADESH.
14. MUNGALA RAGHAV REDDY M. GOPAL REDDY,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 2/104, SOGANUR VILLAGE,
YEMMIGANUR MANGAL, KURNOOL,
ANDHRAPRADESH.
15. M.TARUN M. IRANNA
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O 10/31, ADHONI,
KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH.
16. KOTAGADDA TIMMA REDDY
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 4-65, KUMMARI STREET,
BETHAMCHERLA,
RANGAPURAM, KURNOOL,
ANDHRAPRADESH.
17. RAMAPURAM SHIVARAMADDU R. AYANNA
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSIENSS,
R/O: 9/14, KURAV STREET,
KURNOOL, ANDHRAPRADESH.
18. SHAIKH REHAMTULLA SHAIK SHALI SAHEB,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 6/114, CHANUGONDLA,
GUDUR MANDAL, KURNOOL,
ANDHRAPRADESH.
19. KOTRA MURALIKRISHNA K. RAMALAKSHAMAIAH,
4
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
RESIDING AT 18-233,
C. BELLAR ROAD, KODUMUR,
KURNOOL, ANDHRAPRADESH.
20. SHAIK IBRAHIM SUBHAN,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 85-62, SHAREEM NAGAR,
NEAR SUNKLAMMA GUDI,
KURNOOL, ANDHRAPRADESH.
21. BANDARI SUNKANNA MANDANA,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 2/26B, NAGULAPURAM,
KURNOOL, ANDHRAPRADESH.
22. KASIM DASTAGIR PULA
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 10/19, DODDIPADU,
KALOOR MANDAL,
KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH.
23. NARENDRA GIDDAYYA
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O 2/44, C, 2ND WARD,
ULCHALA, KURNOOL DISTRICT,
ANDHRAPRADESH.
24. DEDEKALA SIDDAIAH D. UDURU SAHEB,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 2/138, MAIN ROAD, TARIGOPULA (V),
JUPADU BANGLOW (M),
KURNOOL, ANDHRAPRADESH.
25. SHAIKH HASSAN AHAMED JOHN SAHEB,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 40/9-4-34,
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES COLONY,
VIJAYAWADA URBAN, ANDHRAPRADESH.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
5
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(GOKARNA POLICE STATION)
R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION & CALL FOR
RECORDS & QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
PENDING AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONERS IN C.C
55/2018, ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN) & CJM COURT KUMTA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 3(1), 3(2A), 7(2B) OF
IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT-1956 AND SEC.34 OF
KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT-1965 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH
THE COMPLAINT AND FIR REGISTERED BY THE GOKARNA
POLICE STATION AT THEIR P.S CRIME NO.37/2016 DATED
17/03/2016 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 3(1),
3(2A), 7(2B) OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION)ACT-1956 AND
SEC.34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT-1956, AS AGAINST THE
PRESENT PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
6
ORDER
Heard the petitioners' counsel and learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 17.03.2016, the respondent-Police have filed a complaint making allegation that these petitioners have been found in a Resort and immediately went there and two persons ran away from the place and one was chased and arrested and after enquiry, he has disclosed his name as Savan Bishwas, who is the Manager of the said Resort. Thereafter, they have found the accused persons along with some ladies in the rooms. They have also found some condom packets in the said Resort and they have also seized some liquor bottles from the counter. The owner and the Manager of the Resort by keeping 8 women in their Resort for gain have involved them in illegal activities, hence, they have invoked 7 Sections 3(1), 3(2A), 7(2B) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, 'ITP Act') and Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.
3. These petitioners who are accused Nos.3 to 27 prayed this Court to quash the very registration of the case against them. The main contention of the petitioners is that they are innocent and they came to resort only to attend conference and the offences invoked do not attract against these petitioners and they are all Wholesale Distributors of Fertilizers and Retail Dealers from Andhra Pradesh and they have all visited Gokarna to attend a seminar conducted by the Company at the cost of the Company. The police have falsely implicated the petitioners and they are all from different places and they have to travel a distance of about 500 to 600 kms to attend the proceedings, hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings. 8
4. The petitioners' counsel in support of his contentions, he submits that this Court in Crl.P. No.1728/2017 held that the Sections which are invoked against these petitioners who are customers do not attract and the offence under Section 3 of the ITP Act provides punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as brothel and Section 4 provides for punishment of living on the earnings of the prostitution and these penal provisions do not attract against these petitioners and other Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act also does not attract having taken note of the allegations made in the complaint and only they found liquor bottles in the counter, hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP in his arguments, he contends that on credible information, raid was conducted and found these petitioners, hence, the case has been registered against these petitioners. 9
6. Having heard the arguments of the petitioners' counsel and also learned HCGP, this Court has to examine whether this Court can invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings initiated against these petitioners.
7. Having taken note of the principles laid down in the above referred order passed by this Court considering the proviso of Sections 3 and 4 of the ITP Act and referring some of the unreported orders, this Court came to the conclusion that Sections 3 and 4 of the ITP Act are not at all attracted insofar as these petitioners are concerned, who are the customers of the resort. In order to constitute an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the ITP Act, there must be an ingredients allowing the premises to be used as brothel and the persons living on the earnings of the prostitution, then only comes under the purview of Sections 3 and 4 of the ITP Act and having considered the allegations made in 10 the complaint and also material on record, the said provisions are noway attracted providing any punishment insofar as customers is concerned, though it is felt by this Court that the customer virtually encourages prostitution, and exploit the victim for money, but in the absence of any specific penal provision, it cannot be said that he is liable for any prosecution for the above said offences.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, though the allegations made in the complaint, there is allegation that these petitioners were indulged in running brothel and living on the earnings of the prostitution, hence, question of invoking Sections 3 and 4 of the ITP Act does not arise. Regarding Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, there is no such allegation against these petitioners that they were having illegal possession of the liquor and only it is mentioned that they found illegal liquor in the counter. 11 When such being the case, the offences invoked against these petitioners are not at all attracted. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to continue the proceedings which has been initiated against these petitioners, hence, petition deserves to be allowed.
9. In view of the above discussions, I pass the following order:
i) Petition is allowed.
ii) The entire proceedings in CC No.55/2018 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Kumta, Uttar Kannada District, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 3(2A), 7(2B) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, insofar as these petitioners is concerned, is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE JTR