IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.9102/2018 BETWEEN:
Noushad.C.K, S/o.C.K.Ibrahim, Aged about 38 years, R/at Kandathi House, Chullikara Kallar, Padmaruth, Kasaragod, Kerala-671 531. ...Petitioner (By Sri.Sachin.B.S, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mangaluru East Police Station, Kadri Hills, Mangaluru, Rep. by SPP, High Court Building, Bengaluru-01.
...Respondent (By Sri.S.Rachaiah, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.3238/2012 on the file of the II JMFC, Mangaluru based on the split up order dt.24.11.2012 passed in C.C.No.3573/2009 which was registered for the offence p/u/s.3(1), 4, 7 of I.T.P Act in so far as petitioner is concerned as per Document Nos.1 and 2.
This Petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.
5 in Crime No.132/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 4 and 7 of the Immoral Traffick (Prevention) Act, 1956 (‘ITP Act’ for short).
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 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) 4. In the above referred decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it came to be 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.
5. In fact, Coordinate Bench of this Court after examining and analyzing Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the ITP Act, 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.
6. A bare reading of the Sections 3(1), 4 and 7 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.
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.
8. Hence, the following;
O R D E R I. Criminal Petition is allowed.
II. Proceeding pending in C.C.No.3238/2012 (Crime No. 132/2009) on the file of the Hon’ble J.M.F.C, II Court, Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 4 and 7 of the ITP Act, are hereby quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner herein and he is acquitted of above said offences.
III. In view of the petition having been disposed of on merits, I.A.No.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE bnv*