Fayaz vs The State By Indiranagara P.S on 22 June, 2018

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Fayaz vs The State By Indiranagara P.S on 22 June, 2018

Bench: K.N.Phaneendra

                             1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2018

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

          CRIMINAL PETITION NO.972 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

1.     Fayaz, aged 38 years,
       S/o Dada Kalandar,
       R/at No.2, 1st Floor,
       4th Cross, Kushalanagara,
       K.G.Halli, Benglauru-560564.

2.     Victor, Aged about 28 years,
       S/o Louis, R/at No.121A,
       Narayanapura, Madhan Enclave,
       K.R.Puram, Bengaluru-560281.         ...Petitioners

(By Sri.Chandrahasa Rai.B, Advocate)

AND:

1.     The State by Indiranagara P.S,
       Bengaluru, Represented by State Public
       Prosecutor, High Court Building,
       Bengaluru-560001.

2.     S.Aisha, Inspector of Police,
       Women and Narcotic Drugs squad C.C.B,
       N.T.Pet, Bengaluru-560002.        ...Respondents

(By Sri.Chethan Desai, HCGP)
                              2




      This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings on the file
of the X ACMM at Mayo Hall, Bangalore City in Crime
No.91/2017, for the offences P/U/S 3, 4, 5 of ITP ACT and
370(3) and 370-A(2) of IPC, registered by the Indiranagara
Police Station, by calling the entire records in pending in
C.C.No.59193/2017, pending on the file of the X
A.C.M.M., Mayo Hall at Bangalore City.

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

                        ORDER

Petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 5 in Crime No.91/2017 but later culminated in C.C.No.59193/2017 on the file of X A.C.M.M, Mayo Hall, Bangalore City for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 of ITP ACT and 370(3) and 370-A(2) of IPC.

2. On careful perusal of the entire chargesheet, it is seen that these petitioners are customers at massage parlor by name 'Aurah SPA and Saloon situated at No.2726, 1st Floor, 80 Feet Road, Indiranagar, Bengaluru. It is alleged that some people are indulged in prostitution in the said building, the police have raided the said 3 building and at that time the petitioners were present in the said massage parlor as customers.

3. This Court had an occasion to deal with similar matters in the following cases;

i) 2015(3) Crimes 281 (AP) ( Goenka Sajan Kumar Vs. State of A.P. Rep by P.P. high Court of A.P.]

ii) Crl.P. No.7056/2014 [ Mohammed Rafi Vs. State of Karnataka]

iii) Crl. P. No. 7110/2011 [ Suraj Vs. State of Karnataka]

iv) Crl. P. 5808/2016 [ Pravesh Chatri Vs. State of Karnataka]

v) W.P. No.56504/2015 [Mahesh Hebbar @ Mahesh Vs. The Station House Officer, Banaswadi Police Station]

vi) Crl.P. No.9682/2016 [ Aswath @ Naveen Vs. State of Karnataka] 4

vii) Crl.P. 8055/2016 [ Raghavendra @ Raghu Vs. State of Karnataka]

viii) Crl. P. No.200782/2016 [ Shivaraj Vs. State of Karnataka] In the above said decisions, this Court has specifically observed that customers are not liable for any punishment under any of the provisions of ITP Act and Section 370 of IPC.

4. This is also evident from the reading of the above said provisions that,-

Section-3 of the Act is a section which provides punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as brothel.

Section-4 provides for punishment of living on the earnings of the prostitution. Section-5 provides procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution.


      Section-7 applies to prostitution        and     in or in
    the      vicinity of public place.
                                      (Emphasis Supplied)
                              5

5. Therefore, none of the above said provisions are attracted so far as the customers are concerned. Though it is felt by this Court on various occasions that the customer virtually encourages prostitution, but in the absence of any specific penal provision, it cannot be said that he is liable for any prosecution for the above said offences.

Hence, the following;

ORDER

i) Criminal petition is allowed;

ii) The entire proceedings in 59193/2017 on the file of X A.C.M.M., Mayo Hall, Bangalore City in Crime No.912017 registered by respondent-Police for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, of ITP ACT and 370(3) and 370-A(2) of IPC and all further proceedings therein, sofaras 6 petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5 are concerned are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE SB

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court