Karnataka High Court
Aswath @ Naveen vs State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2017
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9682 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
Aswath @ Naveen,
Son of Chennagange Gowda,
Aged about 30 years,
Kannegowdahalli,
Mailanahalli Post,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District - 562 123.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri Pradeep C.S., and Shri Mohan Kumara D., Advocates)
AND:
State of Karnataka by
Mahadevapura Police Station,
Represented by
High Court Government Pleader,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(By Shri B. Visweswaraiah, Government Pleader)
*****
2
This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the FIR in Crime
No.29/2016 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections
342 and 370 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act on
the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is one of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and Sections 342 and 370 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is alleged by the prosecution that about 8.00 p.m., the Police Inspector, Central Crime Branch (Women and Narcotic Squad) is said to have received information that in Venkateshwara Layout, Subbanna Compound, place opposite Elil Abode Apartment, A-Block, Vijayanagar, Bangalore, there was suspicious activity of prostitution going on and that girls belonging to another State were stationed there and that there 3 were clients of those girls visiting the place. It is on such information the said police officer along with his men, had conducted a raid at about 9.30 p.m. and it was in fact found that in the premises, there were three girls who were apparently from out of the state and possibly the North-East of India and one Rohith was in charge of the premises. The premises was said to belong to one Jagadish who along with Chethan, Sridhar, Kanakaraj and Gopi were engaged in bringing these girls from out of the state and exploit them for prostitution and therefore, the police at the time of the raid, also arrested the present petitioner who was named as 'customer' for a client who was using the premises and another Arjun has been called a 'pimp' and all of them are arrested and the girls who were labeled as 'prostitutes' were said to have been rescued and the police have seized incriminating materials.
3. It is noticed that the so-called incriminating material include condoms, cash and cellphones. It is not clear as to how 4 these materials could be labeled as 'incriminating material' and on the basis of the said survey and seizure and arrest, a case has been registered for offences as aforesaid. It is in this background that the petitioner after having been enlarged on bail, has preferred this petition.
4. It is pointed out that the alleged presence of the petitioner at the time and place as stated in the complaint, by itself would not enable the police to characterize him as a client who was indulging in any immoral activity or that he was using the service of any of those females present on the scene. It is on that terms that the complaint has been lodged.
In any event, none of these sections alleged would be attracted. In that, it is pointed out that Section 3 of the Act is a section which provides punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing the premises to be used as a brothel, which would not apply to the petitioner. Nor Section 4 which provides for punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution, nor 5 Section 5 which provides for procuring, inducing or taking a person for the sake of prostitution nor does Section 7 apply which pertains to prostitution in or in the vicinity of a public place. Therefore, none of these sections relate to the alleged conduct of the petitioner and his involvement in the episode. Further, the invocation of Section 342 and 370 IPC would not be relevant. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner are misconceives and hence seeks that the proceedings be quashed.
5. The learned Government Pleader would not seriously object to the contentions raised, as it is evident that the mere presence of the petitioner on the premises would not enable the policemen to label the petitioner as a customer. Further, it is not justified in calling three females as prostitutes and another man as a pimp without agreed material evidence. In any event, the proceedings as against the petitioner is patently misconceived and accordingly the present petition is allowed. 6 The proceedings in Crime No.29/2016 on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mayohall, Bangalore, stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS