Karnataka High Court
Pushal @ Faisal vs State By Gundlupet on 7 August, 2019
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.31901/2019(GM-RES)
&
WRIT PETITION No.32110/2019(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. PUSHAL @ FAISAL
S/O ABDUL HAMEED
WYTHAALI KUNNAMANA VILLAGE
CHIRUPA TALUK, MAVUR
KERALA STATE
2. ASIF
S/O MAHAMAD
THACHINADU VILLAGE
CHIRUPA TALUK, MAVUR
KOZHIKODE DIST
KERALA STATE ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NAGARAJ R C, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE BY GUNDLUPET
POLICE STATION
GUNDLUPET CIRCLE
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-01 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.RACHAIAH, HCGP)
2
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR IN CRIME
NO.471/2017 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 OF THE IMMORAL TRAFFIC
[PREVENTION] ACT 1956 AND 370 AND 371[A] OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDE
[JR.DN] AND JMFC, GUNDLUPET PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERN,QUASH CHARGE SHEET FILED IN
C.C.NO.63/2019 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 OF THE IMMORAL
TRAFFIC [PREVENTION] ACT 1956 AND 370 AND 371[A] OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE [JR.DN] AND JMFC, GUNDLUPET PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-B IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERN.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard.
2. Shri Nagaraj R.C., learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, Police have conducted a raid on a brothel house and apprehended the petitioners. They have been charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 3,4,5,6,7 and 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short) and Sections 370 and 371(A) of IPC. Petitioners are the customers and 3 therefore, the said penal provisions of the Act are not attracted against them.
3. The submission of learned Advocate for the petitioners 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)].
5. In the circumstances, following the said decision, these petitions are allowed and the proceedings in C.C No.63/2019 on the file of Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Gundlupet, are quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sk/-