IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR Criminal Petition No.2163/2019 Between:
Girish S/o Srinivas, Aged about 25 years, R/at No.18, 4th Cross, Near Shanimahathma Temple, Srinagar, Bengaluru 560 026.
(By Sri. Chandrashekara K A., Advocate) AND:
State Of Karnataka By the Police of Byatarayanapura Police Station, Bengaluru City-560 026.
Reptd. By the State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru 560 001.
(By Sri. S Rachaiah, HCGP) ... Petitioner ... Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed U/S.482 Cr.P.C praying to quash the entire proceedings pending on the file of learned XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru, (CCH-46), in S.C.No.686/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act and Section 370 of IPC.
This Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No. 2 in S.C.No.686/2017 pending on the file of XLV Addl.
C.C.M. Court, Bengaluru City, in Crime No. 26/2017 of Byatarayanapura Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Section 370 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 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 petitioner that he was found at the place where brothel was being run and was a customer at the brothel house.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.1728/2017 (Mahadeva C. and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka), disposed of on 07.06.2017, where under it has been held that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act would not be attracted insofar as the petitioners therein are concerned, since, they were said to be customers or who were soliciting and prosecution had failed to make out case against the accused persons therein for the above said offences.
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.
6. A perusal of the FIR in the instant case would also disclose that Section 370 of IPC has been invoked by the prosecution and it cannot be gain said by the prosecution that said penal provision would be attracted insofar as the petitioners are concerned since it is not alleged that petitioner herein had indulged in trafficking of minor girls. On this ground also, prosecution cannot proceed against petitioner and continuation of proceedings against him would be abuse of process of law.
7. In the light of the aforestated facts, I do not find any good ground to differ from the view expressed by Coordinate Bench of this Court and as such, present petition deserves to be allowed.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R I. Criminal Petition is allowed.
II. Proceeding pending on the file of XLV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru (CCH- 46) in S.C.No.686/2017, registered by the Byatarayanapura Police Station, Bengaluru City, in Cr.No.26/2017, for the offence punishable under Sections 370 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the ITP Act are hereby quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner herein and he is acquitted of said offences.
Sd/- JUDGE *PSG