Karnataka High Court
Amarnath vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2020
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.388/2020
BETWEEN:
AMARNATH,
S/O SHANKARANARAYANASETTY,
NOW AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.6, SANGAM ROAD CROSS,
SHIVAJINAGARA,
BANGALORE-560 051.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.A. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADV.,)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY THE POLICE OF INDIRANAGARA
POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY-560 038.
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP )
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XLV ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-46) IN
2
S.C.NO.729/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 3, 4 & 5 OF ITP ACT AND SECTION 370(3) OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings in S.C.No.729/2018 pending on the file of the Learned XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru registered for the offences punishable Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and under Section 370 (3) of Indian Penal Code insofar as the same relates to the petitioner/accused No.6 and 3.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
One 04.10.2016, Sri.Narayana Gowda - Police Officer, W & N Squad, CCB, N.T.Pet, Bengaluru lodged a complaint at Indiranagar Police alleging that accused No.1 is running prostitution in Stylo Wellness Centre Unisex Saloon & SPA, No.3330, 6th cross, 13th main, HAL II Stage, Bengaluru. On the basis of credible information, the respondent-Police raid 3 the Stylo Wellness Centre Unisex Saloon & SPA and arrested accused Nos.2 to 7.
3. On completion of investigation, Indiranagar Police laid charge sheet against seven accused persons under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (for short "ITP Act, 1956") and Section 370 (3) of Indian Penal Code.
4. The petitioner has raised two fold contentions:-
(i) The case of the prosecution, even if accepted to be true, does not satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged in the charge sheet.
(ii) There are no allegations against the petitioner herein insofar as the offence under section 370 (3) of Indian Penal Code. The allegations thereof relate only to accused No.1.
5. In the course of the argument, in addition to the above grounds, it is argued, that investigation into the alleged incident and preparation of the panchanama before 4 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 Crl.P.No.8055/2016, 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 and also the decision rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of GOENKA SAJAN KUMAR vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH in 2015(3) Crimes 281 (AP) on these points.
6. I have perused the FIR, charge sheet and the orders relied on by learned counsel for petitioner. The sole ground on which petitioner herein is arrayed as accused in the above crime is that he was present at the spot during the raid, indicating that he gone to the spot as customer. The provisions of the ITP Act, 1956 invoked by the respondent do not get attracted to the facts alleged against the petitioner.
7. Section 3 of the ITP Act, 1956 deal with punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. Section 4 of the ITP Act, 1956 pertains to 5 punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution. Section 5 of the ITP Act, 1956 refers to procuring, inducing or taking (person) for the sake of 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. Apart from the above legal defect, registration of the FIR is also seen to have been done after commencement of the investigation by the respondent, as it is an admitted fact that before registration of the FIR, the police along with mahazar witnesses rushed to the spot and arrested the culprits and drew up the panchanama as recorded in the FIR. This procedure adopted by the respondent renders the proceedings vitiated.
8. The allegations made against the petitioner and the material collected against the petitioner do not show commission of any of the offences alleged against him in the 6 charge sheet and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is 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.
Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in S.C.No.729/2018 pending on the file of the Learned XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru are quashed only insofar as petitioner/accused No.6 Sri.Amarnath is concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE VM