Karnataka High Court
Sri Sushmith vs State By Gundlupet on 7 March, 2019
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NOS. 9288/2019 &
9289/2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
1. SRI. SUSHMITH
S/O. RAGHAVA
AGE 30 YEARS
OCCUPATION: CONTRACTOR,
R/AT NADUHONNURU VILLAGE
KARUHINNURU POST,
KOHINADU TALUK
KOZHI KODA RURAL
KERALA.
2. SRI ANUBH
S/O KUNNIRAMAN,
AGE 30 YEARS
OCCUPATION:DRIVER,
R/AT NADUHONNURU VILLAGE
KARUHINNURU POST,
KOHINADU TALUK
KOZHI KODA RURAL
KERALA.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA R. C., ADV.)
AND
STATE BY GUNDLUPET
POLICE STATION,
GUNDLUPET CIRCLE,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-01
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S. RACHAIAH, HCGP)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION
482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED FIR IN CRIME NO.0471/2017 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 OF THE
IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956 AND 370 AND
370(A) OF INDIAN PENAL CODE ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, GUNDLUPET PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED,
AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING;
ORDER
Petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos. 1 and 2 in crime No. 471/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 370 and 370A of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
2. On careful perusal of the contents of the FIR it would disclose that specific allegations are made against the petitioners that they were found at the place where brothel was being run and were customers at the brothel house.
3
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment/orders passed by this Court in respect of his prayer for quashing the present proceedings by filing a memo and enclosing copies of the said orders which are as follows:
i. Crl.P. No. 1728/2017 (Mahadeva C. and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka) ii. Crl.P. No. 5808/2016 (Parvesh Chatri Vs. State of Karnataka) iii. Crl.P. No. 9682/2016 (Aswath @ Naveen Vs. State of Karnataka) iv. Crl.P. No. 7056/2014 (Mohammed Rafi Vs. State of Karnataka) v. Crl.P. No. 2208/2017 (Sendil Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka) In the above referred decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, it came to be held that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act would not be attracted insofar as the petitioners therein are 4 concerned, since, they were said to be customers or who were soliciting.
4. In fact, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after examining and analyzing Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the ITP Act, 1956 has held that prosecution had failed to make out case against the accused persons therein for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the ITP Act.
5. A bare reading of the Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the ITP Act would clearly indicate that they are in no way attracted insofar as providing any punishment to the customers who were present at the venue where alleged brothel was being run. In the absence of any penal provisions, customers though are in a way contributing to encourage prostitution and which leads to exploitation of women who are in penury, such persons (customers) cannot be held as liable for want of penal provision.
5
6. In the light of the aforestated facts, I do not find any good ground to differ from the view expressed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and as such, present petitions deserve to be allowed.
Hence, the following;
ORDER I. Writ Petitions are allowed.
II. Proceeding pending in C.C. No. 63/2019 registered by the Gundlupete Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 370 and 370A of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the ITP Act are hereby quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioners herein and they are acquitted of said offences.
SD/-
JUDGE VP