Karnataka High Court
Moses Richard @ Richard Louis vs State Of Karnataka on 25 April, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:16774
CRL.P No. 8691 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8691 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
MOSES RICHARD @ RICHARD LOUIS,
S/O. PANDIYAN,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.127/2, NEW CHURCH STREET,
GRAPES GARDEN,
LINGARAJAPURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 084.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANITHA B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HALASURU POLICE STATION,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally BENGALURU - 560 001.
signed by V
KRISHNA 2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
Location: High CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH,
Court of WOMEN'S PROTECTION SQUAD,
Karnataka NEW THARAGUPET,
BANGALORE - 560 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH., HCGP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.16/2020 DATED 23.01.2020 AND
CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, HALASURU
POLICE IN C.C.NO.11478/2021 AND ALL FURTHER
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:16774
CRL.P No. 8691 of 2021
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE SAME PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE MMTC-I, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.11478/2021 arising out of Crime No.16/2020 registered by the respondent - police and charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act (hereinafter referred as 'ITP Act').
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondents.
3. The case of the prosecution is that C.W.1 got a credible information on 15.03.2020 that accused No.1 is said to be running brothel in Amarjyothinagar layout, 5 th main road, House No. 422, 3rd floor, in Dragon Spa by keeping the girls. After receiving the said information, C.W.1 communicated the police officers and sent C.W-8 - -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:16774 CRL.P No. 8691 of 2021 police constable as decoy who had approached the receptionist and asked for massage. Accordingly C.W.8 was taken by C.W.4 for massage and during the massage she said to have told that she will also come for sexual affairs, if he pays more money. In that regard, immediately the police officials raided and apprehended one of the customer and also seized the spa, recovered the articles and then prepared spot panchanama and thereafter, came to the police station and registered FIR against accused Nos.1 to 4. It is alleged that the petitioner is said to be calling the customers through telephone. After completion of investigation, the respondent - police had filed charge sheet which is under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the police have registered the FIR after raid and seized the articles under panchanama which is not in accordance with law and even there is no connecting material against accused No.3 except the say of accused -4- NC: 2024:KHC:16774 CRL.P No. 8691 of 2021 No.1 in his statement that he was bringing customers and he also contended that even the Spa is run by the accused No.1 and there is no CDR collected by the police to show that the petitioner has been collecting the customers through telephone of accused No.1. Therefore, conducting the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is in gross abuse of process of law and therefore prayed for setting aside the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP contended that the petitioner is involved in brothel by calling over customers and sending them to accused No.1 and he is using the Spa centre for the said brothel and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of the entire records, it is seen that the police officials had got credible information on 23.01.2020 about running of brothel in the spa by accused No.3 with the help of accused No.1. Immediately, he collected the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:16774 CRL.P No. 8691 of 2021 panchas and sent C.W-9 - police constable as decoy to the Spa centre which was run by accused No.1. Thereafter, CW.8 went to the Office and met the receptionist for massage and she was sent inside where C.W.4 came for massaging and she said to be told, if he gives more money, she will come for sexual affairs. Immediately, the police raided on the Spa centre and seized some of the articles and prepared the panchanama and thereafter, the police came to the police station and registered FIR. The FIR was registered at 07.00 p.m. on 23.01.2020 and the panchanama was prepared between 04.30 p.m. and 05.30 p.m. on the said date. The investigation was commenced much prior to registering of FIR which is hit by Section 154 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in LALITA KUMARI V/S GOVERNMENT OF UP AND OTHERS reported in (2013)14 SLR 713, that the investigation cannot be done without registering FIR in non-cognizable case.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:16774 CRL.P No. 8691 of 2021
7. In the instant case, without registering the FIR, investigation has been commenced and articles has been seized by the police under panchanama. Therefore, registration of FIR in the instant criminal proceedings by the respondent - police is not sustainable in law. Apart from that the petitioner was said to be a middleman, calling the customers and stating to have sent them to accused No.1. In this regard, there is no CDR collected by the Investigating Officer to connect the said fact with the petitioner/accused No.3 and only on the say of accused No.1 in his statement, the petitioner has been implicated in this case. Even on the date of raid, he was not present and he was shown as absconding.
8. Considering the same, I am of the view that there is no incriminating material for the prosecution to connect the petitioner in the instant criminal proceedings, except the say of accused No.1 in his voluntary statement recorded by the respondent - police which is not admissible under law.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:16774 CRL.P No. 8691 of 2021
9. Considering the facts and on perusal of the entire records, it is clear that initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused No. 3 is gross abuse of process of law and requires to be set aside.
10. Accordingly, the criminal petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 is allowed and the criminal proceedings in C.C No. 11478/2021 arising out of Crime No. 16/2020 registered by respondent - police and charge sheeted for the offence under Section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34