Karnataka High Court
Ambarish Singh vs The State By Wilson Garden P.S on 16 January, 2017
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9853 OF 2016
Between:
1. Ambarish Singh
Aged 30 years
S/o B V Singh
R/at No., 3749
Kumarswamy Layout
Bengaluru-560 078
2. Parameshwar
Aged 43 years
S/o Dr T S Mariyappa
R/at No.16
Sai Baba Nilaya
12th Cross, Wilson Garden
Bengaluru-560 030
3. Suresh Babu
Aged 42 years
S/o Sundar Rajan
R/at No.49
R S Lakshmi Puram
Krishnagiri
Tamil Nadu-635001
-2-
4. Kishor Solangi
S/o Hasthim Solangi
R/at no.14
Middle School Road
V V Puram
Bengaluru-568234
5. Nurulla Beg
Aged 45 years
S/o Hassan Beg
R/at No.35/2
Royal Manner
Ramuji Rao Road
Basavangudi
Bengaluru-560 004
6. Rahul
Aged 39 years
S/o Chandramohan Prasad
R/at No.42
Issro Layout, 10th Main
Bengaluru-560 078
7. Madhav Rao
Aged 43 years
S/o Lakshmi Narayan
R/at No.80/1, 1st Main
1st Cross, Jaya Bheema Nagar
Old Madiwala
Bengaluru-560 068
8. Bharath Rugani
Aged 34 years
S/o Indhar Rugani
R/at No.3804, 7th Cross
-3-
Banashankari 2nd Phase
Bengaluru-560 068
9. P N Srinivas Murthy
Aged 45 years
S/o P C Narayan
R/at No.9/59, Krishnappa Layout
Krishnagiri
Tamil Nadu-635001
10. Pavan Gandhi
Aged 38 years
S/o Babulal Gandhi
R/at No.15, 1st Floor
Flat No.18, Dadar East
Mumbai-371218
11. Prakash Chand Pangadiya
Aged 29 years
S/o Shanthi Lal
R/at No.403
Mandhakini Co-op Society
Daisar East
Mumbai-371285
12. H S Gajendra Reddy
S/o Shamanna
R/at No.1776, 1st Cross, 1st Main
H S R Layout
Bengaluru-560 012
... Petitioners
(By Shri: Chandrahasa Rai B., Advocate)
-4-
And:
1. The State By Wilson Garden P.S
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
Karnataka High Court Building
Bengaluru-560 001
2. Police Inspector
F and C Wing
C C b N T Pet
Bengaluru-560 002
... Respondents
(By Shri:Chethan Desai, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR bearing
No.60/2014 dated 27.02.2014 for the offence
punishable under Sections 188, 370a, 370(3), 294
read with 109 of IPC registered by Wilson Garden
P.S., now renumbered as C.C.No.28501/2015
pending on the file of I ACMM, Bangalore City
against them.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission
this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned State Public Prosecutor is directed to take notice.
-5-
2. The petition is considered for final disposal at the stage of admission.
3. The petitioners are challenging the FIR in No. 60/2014 dated 27/2/2014 registered by the 1st respondent - Police of the Wilson Garden Police Station whereby it is claimed that on credible information received on the basis of report by the Police Inspector, F & M Wing, CCB to the effect that on 26/2/2014 at about 11 p.m., the 2nd respondent had received information that the owner and others of a bar and restaurant namely 'Bangalore Shakers' situated at Kengal Hanumanthaiah Road, Bangalore with an intention to make unlawful gain, had trafficked women from another State and had appointed them as waitresses and they were made to dance in skimpy dresses to the music which was played on the music system. The petitioners herein -6- were alleged to be customers who were having their food and drink while dance and music was going on and therefore these female employees were engaged by the owners of the bar and restaurant only for the purpose of enticing men to have sex with them and therefore they were being used for prostitution. It is on these allegations that the petitioners who were present in the bar when the raid was conducted by the Police were arrested and the case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 370, 370A, 294 read with 109 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is that which is under challenge in this petition.
4. That on the entire reading of the information provided in the report, no case could be made out against the petitioners, much less for the offences punishable under the aforesaid sections. -7- In this regard, the learned counsel would draw the attention to the tenor of the respective sections to demonstrate that no such offence can be foisted against the petitioners. In that, Section 188 pertains to disobedience of an order duly promulgated by public servant. In this regard, the learned State Public Prosecutor would point out that in order to curb such immoral activity, the State Government had prescribed a dress code for female waitresses employed and that was in clear violation in the present case. This by itself would not make the petitioners liable for any offence. Section 370 again cannot be applied to the petitioners as they were not buying or disposing of any person as a slave. Section 294 pertains to whoever to the annoyance of others does any obscene act in any public place or sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near -8- any public place, shall be punished. The petitioners were not singing, dancing or doing any obscene act. Flinging of any currency notes to encourage women to dance better, cannot be treated as an obscene act. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that Section 109 would not apply if the other sections could not be invoked.
5. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.28501/15 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rd/-