Karnataka High Court
Samudrala Narendra ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 March, 2020
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101538/2019
BETWEEN:
SAMUDRALA NARENDRA RADHAKRISHNAMURTHY,
AGE 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. 14-210-1, MAIN BAJAR,
VELLADURTHI, KURNOOL,
KURNOOL,. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.H.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(GOKARNA POLICE STATION)
R/BY ITS S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF Cr.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER
IN C.C.NO.55/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC
COURT, KUMTA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1), 3(2A), 7(2B) OF
IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956 AND SECTION 34
2
OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965 AND CONSEQUENTLY
QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIRST APPELLATE COURT
REGISTERED BY THE GOKARNA POLICE STATION AT THEIR
P.S.CRIME NO.37/2016 DATED 17.03.2016 FOR GTHE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1), 3(2A), 7(2B) OF
IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVISION) ACT, 1956 AND SECTION 34 OF
KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965 AS AGAINST THE PRESENT
PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the petitioner's counsel and learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 17.03.2016, the respondent-Police have filed a complaint making allegation that this petitioner has been found in a Resort and immediately went there and two persons ran away from the place and one was chased and arrested and after enquiry, he has disclosed his name as Savan Bishwas, who is the Manager of the said Resort. Thereafter, they have found the accused 3 persons along with some ladies in the rooms. They have also found some condom packets in the said Resort and they have also seized some liquor bottles from the counter. The owner and the Manager of the Resort by keeping 8 women in their Resort for gain have involved them in illegal activities, hence, they have invoked Sections 3(1), 3(2A), 7(2B) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, 'ITP Act') and Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.
3. These petitioner who is accused No.28 prayed this Court to quash the very registration of the case against them. The main contention of the petitioner is that he is innocent and he came to resort only to attend conference and the offences invoked do not attract against this petitioner and he is a Wholesale Distributor of Fertilizers and Retail Dealers from Andhra Pradesh and he has all visited Gokarna to attend a seminar conducted by the Company at the cost of the 4 Company. The police have falsely implicated the petitioner and this petitioner and other accused persons are all from different places and they have to travel a distance of about 500 to 600 kms to attend the proceedings, hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings.
4. The petitioner's counsel in support of his contentions, he submits that this Court in Crl.P. No.1728/2017 held that the Sections which are invoked against this petitioner who is the customer do not attract and the offence under Section 3 of the ITP Act provides punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as brothel and Section 4 provides for punishment of living on the earnings of the prostitution and these penal provisions do not attract against these petitioner and other Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act also does not attract having taken note of the allegations made in the complaint and only 5 they found liquor bottles in the counter, hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP in his arguments, he contends that on credible information, raid was conducted and found this petitioner, hence, the case has been registered against these petitioner.
6. Having heard the arguments of the petitioner' counsel and also learned HCGP, this Court has to examine whether this Court can invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings initiated against these petitioner.
7. Having taken note of the principles laid down in the above referred order passed by this Court considering the proviso of Sections 3 and 4 of the ITP Act and referring some of the unreported orders, this Court came to the conclusion that Sections 3 and 4 of the ITP Act are not at all attracted insofar as these petitioner are concerned, who are the customers of the 6 resort. In order to constitute an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the ITP Act, there must be an ingredients allowing the premises to be used as brothel and the persons living on the earnings of the prostitution, then only comes under the purview of Sections 3 and 4 of the ITP Act and having considered the allegations made in the complaint and also material on record, the said provisions are noway attracted providing any punishment insofar as customers is concerned, though it is felt by this Court that the customer virtually encourages prostitution, and exploit the victim for money, but in the absence of any specific penal provision, it cannot be said that he is liable for any prosecution for the above said offences.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, though the allegations made in the complaint, there is an allegation that these petitioner were indulged in running brothel and living 7 on the earnings of the prostitution, no material is placed hence, question of invoking Sections 3 and 4 of the ITP Act does not arise. Regarding Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, there is no such allegation against this petitioner that they were having illegal possession of the liquor and only it is mentioned that they found illegal liquor in the counter. When such being the case, the offences invoked against this petitioner are not at all attracted. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to continue the proceedings which has been initiated against this petitioner, hence, petition deserves to be allowed.
9. In view of the above discussions, I pass the following order:
i) Petition is allowed.
ii) The entire proceedings in CC
No.55/2018 on the file of the
learned Principal Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Kumta,
Uttar Kannada District, for the
8
offences punishable under
Sections 3(1), 3(2A), 7(2B) of
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,
1956 and Section 34 of the
Karnataka Excise Act, 1965,
insofar as these petitioner is
concerned, is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*Svh/-