IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7125 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAVITHA D/O. BALAKRISHNA CHITTARI KAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT. NO.2, SHREE LAKSHMI NILAYA NEAR BIG MARKET, 4TH CROSS 24TH MAIN J.P.NAGAR 5TH STAGE, BENGALURU – 560078 2. SUDHAKAR SHETTY S/O. SUNDAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT. NO.96, AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT DOMALURU, BENGALURU – 560071 3. YESHWANTH KUMAR @ YESHWANTH S/O. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT. NO.22 NEAR YASHASHWINI TUTORIALS 4TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE MAHALAKSMIPURAM BENGALURU - 560086 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAGHU.M.V, ADV.,) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY JAYANAGAR POLICE THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 (BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP) …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT JAYANAGAR POLICE IN C.C.NO.20075/2019 (CRIME NO.78/2019) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.3, 4, 5, 6 AND 7 R/W SEC.370 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
“(a) Quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.20075/2019 (Crime No.78/2019) for the offences punishable under Section 3, 4, 5. 6 and 7 read with Section 370 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, on the file of II Additional Chief Metorpolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru.
(b) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaint was registered by Sub-Inspector of Police, High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence under Sections, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act. He further submtis that this Court has interpreted Section 13 of the Act to the extent that Competent Authority for initiation of proceedigns is with reference to notification issued by the State Government wherein, it is identified that authorised officer like Superintendent of Police, and Deputy Superintendent of Police, in other words not below the rank of Police Inspectors can investigate the matter. Undisputedly, in this matter Sub-Inspector of Police has taken up the matter. Consequently, such proceeding is without authority of law and the said issue is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Shankare Gowda @ Shankara Vs. State by Madanayakanahalli Police Station and another – Crl.P.No.5330/2015 decided on 03.02.2016.
3. The aforesaid decision is not disputed by the learned State counsel and at the same time, he intends to apprise this Court stating that even Sub-Inspector of Police is a officer of the Police Department who can take up the matter for initiation of proceedings under the I.T.P. Act.
4. The provisions of I.T.P. Act, in particular, Section 13 of the act provides for issuance of notification to appoint the Authorised Officer who can take up the proceedings under the ITP Act. Undisputedly, State Government has issued a notification wherein, it identifes the Authorised Officer in the police department. Perusal of the authorisation, it is evident that Police Inspector and above upto the rank of Superintendent of Police are authorised and as per the State Government notification a Special Police Officer has to be authorised. In the absence of such authorisation of Special Police Officer, the aforesaid contention of learned State counsel is untenable.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.20075/2019 (Crime No.78/2019) pending on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stand quashed in terms of the order passed in Crl.P.No.5330/2015.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ