IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1652 OF 2018 Between:
Radhakanth Chandran S/o Lukaram Chandan Aged about 28 years R/at No.30, II Cross, I Main Vinayakanagara, Wilson Garden Bengaluru-560 027.
(By Sri.Naveen Kumar, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka by Puttenahalli Police Station Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka-560 001.
2. Sri.Raju.B Police Inspector Puttenahalli Police Station Bengaluru-560 078.
(By Sri.S.T.Naik, HCGP) …Petitioner … Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the entire proceedings pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru in C.C.No.1424/2018 (Cr.No.258/2017) of Puttenahalli Police Station, Bengaluru.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No. 6 in crime No. 258/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 370(3) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 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 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) 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.
4. In fact, Coordinate Bench of this Court after examining and analyzing Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the ITP Act, 1956 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.
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(3) 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, the following;
O R D E R I. Criminal Petition is allowed.
II. Proceeding pending in C.C. No. 258/2017 registered by the Puttenahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 370(3) read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the ITP Act are hereby quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner herein and he is acquitted of 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 ag