Karnataka High Court
Sri. Bharath. J vs State Of Karnataka By on 12 March, 2020
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3966 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. BHARATH. J
S/O. JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 26/1,
PADMANABANAGAR III STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 085.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: G. MANIVANNAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY D. J. HALLI POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP )
---
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME No.1234/2014(CR.NO.77/2013) FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3,4,5,6,9 OF I.T.P ACT
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE M.M.T.C-I, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.1234/2014 pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court-1), Mayohall, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (for short "ITP Act") insofar as the same relates to petitioner/accused No.5. As per Court order dated 02.06.2014, case against accused No.5 was split up and a separate criminal case was registered against him in C.C.No.1208/2013.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
The respondent Police registered a case alleging that on 20/21.03.2013, at about 02.15 A.M., the informant (Sri.Parashiva Murthy, Police Inspector) received credible information that at house No.C/17/(12), 3rd floor, Ancialta Apartment, Rajaramanna road, near Gurukrupa Hotel, K.B.Sandra, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru, Smt.Manjula and Madan Mohan/accused Nos.1 and 2, who were residing in the said house as tenants which belonged to one Rajashekar, had been 3 running a prostitution racket by bringing the girls from different parts of the country. The respondent Police along with the staff and panchas, formed into two groups, conducted a raid on the house and arrested accused Nos.1 to 7.
3. On the basis of the above information, FIR came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 7 and after investigation, charge-sheet was laid against accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of ITP Act.
4. The petitioner contends that the case of the prosecution, even if accepted to be true, does not satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged in the FIR and the charge- sheet.
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, learned counsel has referred to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.54250/2017 wherein this Court while dealing with 4 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 refers to the procuring, inducing or taking (person) for the sake 5 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. Section 9 deals with seduction of a person for prostitution. 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.
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 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. 6
Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The charge- sheet in C.C.No.1234/2014 arising out of Cr.No.77/2013 (split up case in C.C.No.1208/2013) on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court-1) Mayohall, Bengaluru is quashed only insofar as petitioner/accused No.5 - Sri.Bharath J., is concerned.
In view of disposal of petition, I.A.No.1/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is dismissed as unnecessary.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bss