IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7887 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
DINESH S/O. PULLCHANDHANAIN RESIDING AT KAIPET DAVANAGERE PIN CODE NO:577002 …PETITIONER (BY SHRI C.N.RAJU, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY WOMEN POLICE DAVANAGERE, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE – 560 001 2. BALACHANDRA NAIK POLICE OFFICER PI, DCIB & A.H.T.U OFFICER DAVANAGERE – 577 002 … RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI S.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN S.C.NO.114/2018 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.83/2016 OF WOMEN POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
Heard.
ORDER 2. Shri C.N.Raju, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, police have conducted a raid on a brothel house and apprehended the petitioner. He has been charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (‘the Act’ for short). Petitioner is a customer and therefore, the said penal provisions of the Act are not attracted against him.
3. The submission of learned advocate for the petitioner is not disputed by the learned HCGP.
4. This Court has taken a consistent view that the penal provisions of the Act are not applicable so far as customers in a brothel house are concerned. [See Narasimha Murthy vs. The State by Hennuru Police Station and another (Crl.P.No.5275/2017 D.D. 07.12.2017)].
5. In the circumstances, following the said decision, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in S.C.No.114/2018, on the file of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, are quashed, so far as the petitioner is concerned.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ