Karnataka High Court
Sri.Mitesh Rajan Jha vs State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 2018
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9523 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI MITESH RAJAN JHA
S/O. PRAKASH JA JEPIJA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT SHIVASUNDRI ROAD NIYAR
SHIVAPAHAR, SHIVAPAHARDU
MKA SIMDEGA
JHARKAND - 835 223 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SRIRANGAPATNA POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY IT
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S. RACHAIAH, HCGP)
***
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH ALL PROCEEDINGS IN
CRIME NO.275/2017 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C. COURT, S.R.PATNA
2
REGISTERED FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 370, 370A OF IPC AND SECTION 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 OF
IMMORAL TRAFFIC PREVENTION ACT AS AGAINST THIS
PETITIONER REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT POLICE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned HCGP takes notice for respondent No.1.
2. Even though the matter is listed for Admission with the consent of parties, the matter is heard for final disposal.
3. This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash all proceedings in Crime No.275/2017 of Srirangapatna Police Station pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court, S.R. Patna, Mandya for the offences punishable under sections 370 and 370(A) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6,7 and 8 of Immoral Traffic Prevention 3 Act, 1956 in so far as the same relates to the petitioner/accused No.17.
4. The facts of the case are as follows:
The respondent filed a complaint in Crime No.275/2017 in the Srirangapatna Police Station, alleging that the police official attached to the respondent police were planning to hold a meeting in connection with the upcoming Gowri and Ganesha festival. The informant received a reliable information that, in Marga Dhaba near Naguvanahalli in Bangalore-Mysore Highway in a room attached to the Dhaba, some illegal activities were taking place and therefore by procuring Anti Human Trafficking squad, the said Dhaba was raided and 7 women and the accused persons were found involved in prostitution.
5. On the basis of the above information, FIR came to be registered against the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 370 and 370(A) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of 4 Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (for short "ITP Act, 1956").
6. The petitioner has raised two fold contentions:-
(i) The case of the prosecution, even if accepted to be true, does not satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged in the FIR.
(ii) There are no allegations against the petitioner herein in so far as the offence under Sections 370 and 370(A) of Indian Penal Code.
7. In the course of the argument, in addition to the above grounds, it is argued, that the investigation into the alleged incident and the preparation of the panchanama before registration of the FIR is bad in law. In support of the argument, learned counsel has referred to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.54250/2017 wherein this Court while dealing with similar situation has referred to the decisions in Crl.P.No.7110/2011, Crl. P. No. 7056/2014, Crl. P. No. 9682/2016, Crl. P. No. 5 5808/2016, W. P. No. 56504/2015, Crl.P.No.1959/2017 and also the decision rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of GOENKA SAJAN KUMAR vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in 2015(3) Crimes 281 (A.P.) on these points.
8. I have perused the FIR and the orders relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The sole ground on which the petitioner herein is arrayed as the accused in the above crime is that he was present at the spot during the raid. The provisions of the ITP Act, 1956 invoked by the respondent do not get attracted to the facts alleged against the petitioner. Section 3 of the ITP Act, 1956 deal with the punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. Section 4 of the ITP Act, 1956 pertains to punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution. Section 5 of the ITP Act, 1956 refers to the procuring, inducing or taking (person) for the sake of prostitution. Section 6 of the ITP Act, 1956 deals about 6 detaining a person in the premises where prostitution is carried out. Section 7 deals with prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places. A person who visits brothel house only as a customer is not covered by any of the above provisions or any other provision of the ITP Act, 1956. In the decisions referred above, in similar fact situation, the proceedings have been quashed solely on that score.
9. The allegations made against the petitioner and the material collected against the petitioner do not show the commission of any of the offences alleged against him in the FIR and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are contrary to the decision in the case of GIRISHCHANDRA VS. STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE reported in ILR 2013 Karnataka 983, and the law laid down in the case of LALITHA KUMARI vs. GOVERNMENT OF U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. For both these reasons, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 7
Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.275/2017 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court, S.R. Patna, Mandya is quashed only insofar the petitioner is concerned.
I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is dismissed as unnecessary.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST/NR