Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Hemanth vs State Of Karnataka on 4 December, 2018

Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar

Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar

                              1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

        CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8879 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

Hemanth
S/o Dharampal
Aged about 33 years
Siemens Officer Guest House
4th Floor, Koramangala
Bangalore - 560 034.
                                             ...PETITIONER
(By Sri.Chandrashekara K., Advocate)

AND:

1.     State of Karnataka
       By Banasawadi Traffic P.S.
       Rep by S.P.P.
       High Court Building
       Bangalore - 560 001.

2.     Radhakrishan D
       S/o not known
       Aged about Major
       Inspector of Police
       Ashokanagar Police Station
       Bangalore - 560 025.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri.I.S.Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R1)
                                2

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order dated 29.10.2018
passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-1,
Mayohall   Unit,   Bangalore       in   C.C.No.1398/2010   and
discharge the petitioner.


      This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day,
the Court made the following:


                            ORDER

Heard.

2. Shri.Chandrashekara K., learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, police have conducted a raid on the brothel house and apprehended the petitioner. He has been charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention Act), 1956 ('the Act' for short). Petitioner is customer and therefore, the said penal provisions of the Act are not attracted against him.

3. The submission of learned advocate for the petitioner is not disputed the learned HCGP. 3

4. This Court has taken a consistent view that the penal provisions of the Act are not applicable so far as customers in a brothel house are concerned. [See Narasimha Murthy vs. The State by Hennuru Police Station and another (Crl.P.No.5275/2017 D.D. 07.12.2017)].

5. In the circumstances, following the said decision, the proceedings in C.C.No.1398/2010 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, are quashed, so far as the petitioner is concerned.

The Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE Prs*