IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K N PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5275/2017 BETWEEN:
1. NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED 29 YEARS S/O NARAYNAPPA R/AT CHENNAHALLI NEAR DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL – 560132. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANDRAHASA RAI B, ADV) AND:
1. THE STATE BY HENNURU P.S. BENGALURU, REPT BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. T.SRINIVAS INSPECTOR OF POLICE HENNURU POLICE STATION BENGALURU – 560132. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANDESH J CHOUTA- SPP II) THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF XI ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.53409/2017 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.262/2016 REGISTERED BY HENNURU P.S., BY CALLING THE ENTIRE RECORDS PENDING ON THE FILE OF XI ACMM, MAYOHALL, BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner is arraigned as accused no.3 in C.C.No.53409/2017 on the file of XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore arising out of Crime No.262/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956.
2. On careful perusal of the entire charge sheet papers, it is seen that these petitioners are the customers in the alleged brothel house found by the police at the time of raid. This Court had an occasion to deal with similar matters in the following cases:
i) 2015(3) Crimes 281 (AP) ( Goenka Sajan Kumar Vs. State of A.P. Rep by P.P. high Court of A.P.] ii) Crl.P. No.7056/2014 [ Mohammed Rafi Vs. State of Karnataka] iii) Crl. P. No. 7110/2011 [ Suraj Vs. State of Karnataka] iv) Crl. P. 5808/2016 [ Pravesh Chatri Vs. State of Karnataka] v) W.P. No.56504/2015 [Mahesh Hebbar @ Mahesh Vs. The Station House Officer, Banaswadi Police Station] vi) Crl.P. No.9682/2016 [ Aswath @ Naveen Vs. State of Karnataka] vii) Crl.P. 8055/2016 [ Raghavendra @ Raghu Vs. State of Karnataka] viii) Crl. P. No.200782/2016 [ Shivaraj Vs. State of Karnataka] 3. In all the above said decisions, this Court has considered and held that the offences under Sections 3,4,5 and 7 of the ITP Act and Section 370 IPC are not attracted, so far as the customers of a brothel house is concerned. In fact, this Court has consistently come to the conclusion after analyzing the above said provisions in the above said cases, that the constitution of the offences are not made-out sofaras the customers are concerned.
4. This is also evident from the reading of the above said provisions that,-
Section-3 of the Act is a section which provides punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as brothel.
Section-4 provides for punishment of living on the earnings of the prostitution.
Section-5 provides procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution.
Section-7 applies to prostitution and in or in the vicinity of public place.
(Emphasis Supplied) 5. Therefore, none of the above said provisions are attracted so far as the customer is concerned. Though it is felt by this Court on various occasions that the customer virtually encourages prostitution, but in the absence of any specific penal provision, it cannot be said that he is liable for any prosecution for the above said offences.
6. In the above said circumstances, I do not find any strong reason to differ from the above said consistent view taken by this Court. There is no legal impediment to quash the proceeding.
7. In view of the above said circumstance, the following is passed:
ORDER The petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.53409/2017 on the file of the XI ACMM, Mayohall, Bengaluru in Crime No.262/2016 for the offence under Sections 3,4,5 and 7 of the ITP Act and also under Section 370 IPC and all further proceedings therein, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Brn