Karnataka High Court
Mr K Dinesh vs State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2019
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
1
CRL.P. NO.3286/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3286 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
MR. K. DINESH
S/O SANKARPANEEKAR SHIVALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
R/POST: RAMANATTAUKARA
DIST: CALICUT
KERALA STATE - 673 001 ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. GEETA R. SHINDHE, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI RAJENDRA DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION
REP. BY P.P.,
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN INDIRANAGAR
POLICE STATION, CRIME NO.412/2013 AND CONSEQUENTIALLY
PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN C.C.NO.1795/2013, ON THE FILE OF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT - I, MAYO HALL,
BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE 'C' AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
CRL.P. NO.3286/2018
ORDER
Heard.
2. Smt. Geeta R. Shindhe, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that police have conducted a raid on a brothel house and apprehended the petitioner. He has been charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short). Petitioner is a customer and therefore, the said penal provisions of the Act are not attracted against him.
3. The submission of learned advocate for the petitioner is not disputed the learned HCGP.
4. This Court has taken a consistent view that the penal provisions of the Act are not applicable so far as customers in a brothel house are concerned. [See Narasimha Murthy vs. The State by Hennuru Police Station and another (Crl.P.No.5275/2017 D.D. 07.12.2017)]. 3 CRL.P. NO.3286/2018
5. In the circumstances, following the said decision, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1795/2013 pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court - I, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, are quashed, so far as the petitioner is concerned.
6. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE AV