IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.52/2019 BETWEEN:
SOUMIK DAS AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O RAJATH DAS R/AT NO.101, 5TH CROSS KODIHALLI MAIN ROAD NEAR KODIHALLI MASJID OLD AIRPORT ROAD BENGALURU-560 008 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHANTHESH SHETTAR, ADV. ) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAJAJINAGAR POLICE MALLESHWARAM SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU – 560 010 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI S. RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.20741/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IX ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU IN CR.NO.89/2016 INSOFAR AS PETITIONER HEREIN IS CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.3 in Crime No.89/2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 370 IPC.
2. It is stated that on 25.05.2016, Police Inspector of Rajajinagar Police Station raided Flat No.206, Kiran Narayan Mansion, 1st A Cross, 2nd Main, 2nd Stage, Sai College Road, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru and arrested petitioner along with other accused and secured the victim viz., Miss Preethi. On careful perusal of the contents of the FIR, it would disclose that specific allegation made against the petitioner is he was found at the place where brothel was being run and as a customer at the brothel house he was soliciting.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his prayer for quashing the present proceedings pending against him, has relied upon the orders passed by Coordinate Benches of this Court in Crl.P.No.5808/2016 (Pravesh Chatri Vs. State of Karnataka) and in Crl.P.No.9682/2016 (Aswath @ Naveen Vs. State of Karnataka) where under it has been held that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act would not be attracted insofar as 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 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 and was soliciting. 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 punishment 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 petitioner is 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.20741/2017 registered by the Rajajinagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 370 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.1/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE hkh.