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

Yogaraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2019

Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar

Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar

                                   1

                                                      CRL.P. NO.5572/2019




       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

               CRIMINAL PETITION No.5572 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

1.     YOGARAJ
       S/O MYLAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
       R/AT NARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
       DAVANAGERE TALUK
       DAVANAGERE-577 014

2.     HARISH
       S/O SHIVKUMAR
       AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
       R/AT 6TH CROSS
       LALBAHADURSHASTRI NAGARA
       BAMBU BAZAR
       DAVANAGERE-577 001                               ... PETITIONERS

(BY SHRI. K.N. JAYA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WOMEN POLICE STATION
DAVANAGERE
REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P.
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001                                      ... RESPONDENT

(BY SHRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP)

       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C.,    PRAYING   TO   QUASH       THE   ENTIRE   PROCEEDINGS     IN
C.C.NO.1271/2018 (OLD C.C.NO.1035/2017) ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.41/2017 REGISTERED BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III JMFC COURT, DAVANAGERE FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/Ss.3, 4 AND 5 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT.
                                  2

                                                    CRL.P. NO.5572/2019




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


                           ORDER

Heard.

2. Shri K.N.Jayaprakash, 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 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short). Petitioners are the customers and 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)]. 3 CRL.P. NO.5572/2019

5. In the circumstances, following the said decision, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1271/2018 (old C.C.No.1035/2017) arising out of Crime No.41/2017 pending on the file of III JMFC Court, Davanagere, are quashed, so far as the petitioners are concerned.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE AV