Karnataka High Court
Mr Praveen Kumar M S vs State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2022
Author: K. Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1398/2017
BETWEEN:
MR. PRAVEEN KUMAR M.S.
S/O. SHANMUGAM
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/A:NO.3-1-80 D
MOODANAMBOOR
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ULLAL POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.VINAYAKA.V.S., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.605/2016 OF ULLAL
POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 3(1), 4, 5 AND 8 OF IMMORAL TRAFFICKING
PREVENTION ACT, 1956, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III J.M.F.C.,
MANGALORE, D.K.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSON,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the FIR in Crime No.605/2016 registered by Ullal Police for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 4, 5 and 8 for Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'ITP Act' for short).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that one Sunil.Y.Naik, Inspector attached to the CCB Squad, Mangalore filed a complaint to the Ullala Police Station on 01.12.2016 at about 8:30 pm alleging that at about 5:00 p.m., he got a credible information that there was brothel going on in the Villos Hair Skin Spa and Massage Centre which is opposite to Kapikadu Wine and Dine Bar and Restaurant. In that, he secured the presence of two 3 panchas by name Sandeep and Roshan and visited the spot and in two rooms, accused Nos.2 and 3 found in compromising position with some women. Therefore, they were apprehended and on enquiry with one Disha, Receptionist, has informed that the petitioner is running a massage centre by taking money and engaging girls for brothel. After seizing the cash of Rs.950/-, the complainant brought all the seized materials and accused Nos.2 and 3 to the Ullala Police Station and prepared a complaint and filed the same. The Police Inspector of Ullala police station registered the case and handed over the case to the Sub-Inspector of Police, which is under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that there is a gross violation of all the provisions of law and rules, apart from violation of Government Notification. The police officer, who received the credible information has not entered the same in the 4 Station House Diary and he straight away went to the spot and apprehended the accused persons and prepared panchanama and seized the material. Thereafter, he filed a complaint which was registered at 8:30 pm and the investigation had already started prior to registration of the FIR, which is violation of provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. He further contended that even while conducting the raid, the police officer did not take any respective women from the locality. Thereby there is violation of Section 15(2) of the ITP Act. It is also contended that as per the Notification of the Government dated 02.08.2008 wherein it is stated that not below the rank of the Inspector, investigate the matter, but the Police Inspector, who registered the case has handed over the case for investigation to the Sub-Inspector of Police which is also violation. There is no material to show that this petitioner is conducting brothel. The parlour is in the name of his wife. Therefore, conducting investigation is abuse of the process of the law.
5
5. Per contra, learned HCGP objects the petition.
6. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent and on perusal of the records, admittedly, the Inspector of Police, who is the first informant is said to be the Inspector of CCB, Mangalore, received the credible information at 5:00 pm on 01.12.2016 then he said to have obtained permission of the higher officer and secured two panchas namely; Sandeep and Roshan and visited the said spot and he found two persons in different room with women in compromising position. Hence, he apprehended them and seized cash from them. The panchanama was prepared on 01.12.2016 between 6:15 p.m. to 7:15 p.m. Subsequently, he came to Ullala Police Station and filed a complaint, which was registered as FIR at 8:30 p.m. which reveals that there is a clear violation of Section 154 of Cr.P.C., where the investigation is commenced prior to the registration of an 6 FIR. If at all the Police Officer entered the information in the Station House Diary and obtained permission from the higher officer and obtained warrant, then he can proceed to visit the spot along with panchas. Therefore, there is a gross violation of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. That apart, the panchanama reveals that name of two persons Sandeep and Roshan.
7. Section 15(2) of the ITP Act reveals that atleast one of the witness shall be a respectable women from the said locality at the time of search seizure, but, that was not done by the police officer. Thereby, there is a gross violation of Section 15(2) of the ITP Act. That apart, the learned counsel produces notification of the Government of Karnataka dated 02.08.2008 wherein it states that who will be the officer for investigation under the ITP Act, Section 13 of the Act states that where not below the rank of Inspector of police is permitted to investigate the matter.
7
8. Here in this case, the Police Inspector who registered the complaint and handed over the same to the Sub-Inspector of Police for investigation is also violation of provisions of Section 13 of the Act which is also abuse of the process of the law. Such being the case, allowing the police to investigate the matter is nothing but the abuse of the process of the law. Hence, the FIR is liable to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings pending in Crime No.605/2016 registered by Ullala Police for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 4, 5 and 8 of the ITP Act against the petitioner, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RKA