Karnataka High Court
Sri D N Srinivash Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2018
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
WRIT PETITION NO.8858/2018 (GM - RES)
BETWEEN:
Sri. D.N. Srinivash Reddy
S/o. Late Narayana Reddy,
Aged about 51 years,
Residing at No.1187/B,
4th Cross, 4th Main,
Domlur, Bengaluru - 560 037.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Chethan S., Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Through Station House Officer,
Airport Police Station,
Bengaluru - 560 017.
2. Police Inspector,
Central Crime Branch,
(Woman and Narcotic Squad)
N T Pet, Bengaluru - 560 002.
....Respondents
(By Sri. S. Rachaiah, HCGP)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying
to quash the FIR, Written information, chargesheet and the
entire proceedings in FIR bearing Crime No.152/2014 dated
05.12.2014 now registered as C.C.No.54125/2015 registered
for the alleged offences under Section 370(3), 370(A), 188,
294 r/w 109 of IPC pending on the file of the Hon'ble X Addl.
2
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru,
enclosed and marked as Annexures - A, B, C and D.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing,
this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.34 under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying the Court to quash the proceedings by issuing a writ of Certiorari or any other writ quashing the FIR, written information, chargesheet and the entire proceedings in FIR bearing Crime No.152/2014 dated 05.12.2014. Now pending in C.C.No.54125/2015 registered for the offence under Section 370(3), 370(A),188, 294 read with 109 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for petitioner/accused No.34, and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that the information dated 05.12.2014 came to be preferred by the respondent No.2 alleging that on 03.12.2014, the 3 respondent No.2 received an information that the Bar and Restaurant "Chief-inn-Regency" had employed woman to serve in the Bar. The owner of the Bar and Restaurant without following the dress code and other norms prescribed by the Public Entertainment Order, the said female employees were allowed to dance wearing skimpy dresses and the customers were allowed to tip the woman employees. On the basis of the said information, a case came to be registered and the raid was said to be conducted at the said place.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition and also FIR, complaint and other chargesheet material.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the case submitted that the other accused, who approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, this Court has already quashed the proceedings in respect of accused Nos. 42 and 43. Learned counsel has produced a copy of order dated 04.01.2018 in Crl. P. No.4468/2017.
4
6. I have perused the said order. This Court has considered the entire merits of the case and ultimately held that since the petitioners in the said order are the customers, the alleged offences are not at all attracted. Perusing the materials, even the present petitioner, who is accused No.34 is also the customer. Therefore, the above said order is also made applicable to the present petitioner/accused No.34. Hence, petition is allowed. All the proceedings pending against the present petitioner/accused No.34 is also quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE VBS