Karnataka High Court
Sri Pavithrananda Raju S vs The State By on 16 December, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8115 OF 2016
Between:
Sri Pavithrananda Raju S
S/o Late Siddappa,
Aged about 44 years,
Working as Hostel Warden,
Shivamogga, Resident of House No.2,
K.H.B. Colony, Hosamane,
Shivamogga-572202.
... Petitioner
(By Shri. Pradeep C S, Advocate)
And:
The State by
Women Police Station,
Kote Circle,
Shivamogga-572202.
... Respondent
(By Shri. Chethan Desai, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR in
Cr.No.125/2016 on the file of JMFC - II Court,
Shivamogga.
2
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
2. The petition coming up for admission is considered for final disposal.
3. The petitioner is arrayed as accused for the offence punishable under Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ITP Act' for brevity) and under Section 370 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC' for brevity). The police have lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging that on 10.09.2016 at about 7.30 p.m. the Women Police Station, Kote Circle of Shivamogga had received information that some person has engaged in prostitution at a hotel known as 'Mathura Paradise Hotel'. Accordingly, the respondent had visited the hotel at Shivamogga along with the police Sub Inspector Anitha Misari, H C Lakshmi, Police Constable, Suryanaidu, Mohan, Raghavendra S/I Annu, 3 Moghaveera, Jagadeesh S/o Panchaksharappa and enquired with the receptionist as to whether there was any immoral activity going on in the premises and as to who were the guests staying in the hotel at that moment. The receptionist is said to have informed that an elderly man along with a young girl had checked into Room No.123 at about 6.45 p.m. and that he the guest had introduced himself as the father of the girl.
4. On receiving the said information, the police are said to have knocked on the door of Room No.123 at which, the petitioner is said to have opened the door and he was wearing a T-Shirt and shorts and the police are said to have barged into the room and found a woman lying on the cot and that she was naked. Thereafter, the police asked her to dress herself and found out that her name was Usha and that she was 18 years old and a student of BBM and a resident of Nimbagondi, near Aneveri Bhadravathi Taluk and she was presently residing at BCM Hostel, Shivamogga. It is further elicited from the said woman that the petitioner was a 4 warden of Morarji Desai School and he has helped her in getting admission into the hostel and also helped her whenever she was in need of money and in return, he wanted her to share the bed with him, therefore, she was in the lodge along with him. The police are also said to have recovered condom, cell phone and another cell phone of the petitioner. Thereafter, proceeded to register complaint against the petitioner. It is in this background, that the petitioner is arrayed as accused before the Court below and the petitioner seeks to question the proceedings.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the sections invoked namely, Sections 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act and Section 370 of IPC are not attracted. Section 5 would not be attracted as the petitioner would not fit into the category of a person referred to in that section as the petitioner had certainly not brought Usha who was along with him, for the sake of prostitution. In so far as Section 6 is concerned, again it would not be applicable as he has not detained her against her will and that she had 5 willfully accompanied him. Section 7 was also inapplicable as he was not carrying on any prostitution in the vicinity of a public place and since the alleged case of the petitioner is not in the nature of procuring any person or conducting prostitution, the question of invoking the said provisions would be out of place and the very maintainability of the case is sought to be questioned. Section 370 of IPC is also not attracted as it is not a question of the petitioner having brought any slave to the hotel room and therefore, seeks that the proceedings be quashed.
6. It is noticed that the allegations in the complaint was that the hotel was being run as a brothel and the police having visited the hotel and searched the room where the petitioner was staying only on the information that the petitioner was accompanied by a young girl, the presumption would not arise that the girl was a prostitute and that she had solicited the custom of the petitioner in having occupied the room for the purposes of sex, as it was quite possible that it was an unholy union of an older man exploiting a young girl, to satisfy his lust and the girl having succumbed to his 6 wishes on account of poverty and willfully having joined him. She was not a call girl, in the sense of being available to any person who approaches her for sex. It was a private arrangement between the petitioner and the said girl who was a student.
7. In view of the proceedings having been initiated in a manner that the petitioner is already said to have lost his job and on moral grounds, was removed from the post of Warden, of a boys hostel and that it would not be a case of a kind as if the girl involved was a prostitute. It would only have the effect of severely damaging her character and standing in society. If the case itself cannot be sustained against the petitioner, the damage that it might cause to the victim is even more serious than the punishment that can be imposed on the petitioner. Therefore, in the fitness of things, the proceedings are misconceived and are liable to the quashed.
7
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in Cr.No.125/2016 on the file of the JMFC II Court, Shivamogga, stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-