Karnataka High Court
Nagaraju B J @ Raju vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 August, 2018
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6234 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJU B J @ RAJU
S/O. JAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
MEDICAL REPRESENTATIVE,
R/O. SHAMANURU MAIN ROAD,
SHAMANURU,
DAVANAGERE-577 004
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: JAYA PRAKASH K N, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WOMEN POLICE STATION,
DAVANAGERE,
REP BY ITS SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT: NAMITHA MAHESH, B.G., HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING COMPLAINT AND FIR IN
CR.NO.103/2018 OF WOMEN P.S., DAVANAGERE FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3,4,5 OF I.T.P ACT
2
AND SEC.370 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III JMFC,
DAVANAGERE IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings in Cr.No.103/2018 pending on the file of II JMFC., Court, Davanagere, for the offences punishable under section 370 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 in so far as the same relates to the petitioner/accused No.4.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
On 14.7.2018, at about 3.30 p.m. one Sri. S.K. Shankar- Sub Inspector of Police, D.C.I.B. Section, Davanagere, received a credible information that prostitution was carried on in the premises bearing House No.1372/17, 4thMain, in front of UBIT Girls Hostel, Vianayaka Nagara, Davanagere. On the basis of the said information, the respondent-police raided the said house at 4.00 p.m. and arrested the customer viz., petitioner/accused 3 No.4 along with other accused persons and seized 5 mobiles, cash of Rs.2300/- and other materials.
3. On the basis of the above information, FIR came to be registered against three accused persons for the offences punishable under section 370 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (for short "ITP Act, 1956").
4. The petitioner has raised two fold contentions:-
(i) The case of the prosecution, even if accepted to be true, does not satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged in the FIR.
(ii) There are no allegations against the petitioner herein in so far as the offence under section 370 of Indian Penal Code.
The allegations thereof relate only to accused Nos. 1 and 2 and 7 and 8.
5. 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, 4 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.No.7110/2011, Crl.P.No.7056/2014, Crl.P.No.9682/2016, Crl.P.No.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 vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in 2015(3) Crimes 281 (A.P.) on these points.
6. I have perused the FIR and the orders relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The sole ground on which the petitioner herein is arrayed as the accused in the above crime is that he was present at the spot during the raid, indicating that he was a customer who had gone to the spot. The provisions of the ITP Act, 1956 invoked by the respondent do not get attracted to the facts alleged against the petitioner. Section 3 of the ITP Act, 1956 deal with the punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. Section 4 of the ITP Act, 1956 pertains to punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution. Section 5 of the ITP Act, 1956 5 refers to procuring, inducing or taking (person) for the sake of prostitution. Section 6 of the ITP Act, 1956 deals about detaining a person in the premises where prostitution is carried out. Section 7 deals with prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places. A person who visits brothel house only as a customer is not covered by any of the above provisions or any other provision of the ITP Act, 1956. In the decisions referred above, in similar fact situation, the proceedings have been quashed solely on that score. Apart from the above legal defect, the registration of the FIR is also seen to have been done after the commencement of the investigation by the respondent-Police as it is an admitted fact that before registration of the FIR, he rushed to the spot and arrested the culprits and drew up the panchanama as recorded in the FIR. This procedure adopted by the respondent renders the proceedings vitiated.
7. The allegations made against the petitioner and the material collected against the petitioner do not show the commission of any of the offences alleged against him in the FIR and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are contrary to the decision in the case of GIRISHCHANDRA VS. STATE BY 6 LOKAYUKTHA POLICE reported in ILR 2013 Karnataka 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.
Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The FIR in Cr.No.103/2018 on the file of the III JMFC., Court, Davanagere is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE psg*