Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Pradeepa vs State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2019

Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar

Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar

                          1
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019

                       BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

                  CRL.P No.5050/2018

BETWEEN:

PRADEEPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO.2711/1
2ND MAIN ROAD
V.V. MOHALLA
MYSURU CITY
KARNATAKA-570002.
                                        ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI K. SHRIDHARA , ADVOCATE)

AND :

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIJAYANAGAR
POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
AMBEDKAR BEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001.
                                       ... RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA - HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.
152/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IV JMFC AT MYSORE FOR
                             2
THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 3, 4 & 5 OF IMMORAL
TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT - 1956.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                         ORDER

Heard.

2. Sri K. Shridhara, 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 and 5 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 by the learned HCGP.

4. This Court has taken a consistent view that the penal provisions of the Act are not applicable so far 3 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, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.152/2016 on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysore 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 SBS* CT:bm