IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1172/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. BHINAY ROY @ BINAY ROY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O HARICHANDRAN RESIDING AT NO.18/19 9TH CROSS, II ‘A’ MAIN VIGNAN NAGAR BENGALURU-560 093.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.K. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH H.A.L POLICE STATION BENGALURU-58 REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-01.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET/ PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 366, 366A, 506, 373, 511 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 9 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) IN S.C.NO.1356/2014 AT BANGALORE, ARISING OUT OF FIR, AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED 15.12.2012 IN CRIME NO.493/2012.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No. 3 in crime No. 493/2012 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 511, 373, 506, 366 and 366(A) r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 has sought for quashing of said proceedings.
2. On careful perusal of the contents of FIR it would disclose that specific allegations had been made against 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 petitioner submits that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has relied upon the orders in Crl.P. No. 1728/2017 (Mahadeva C.
and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka) disposed of on 07.06.2017 by holding 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. 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 a case against accused persons therein registered for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the ITP Act.
4. A bare reading of the Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the ITP Act would clearly indicate that they are in no way attracted insofar as providing any punishment to a customer who was present at the venue where alleged brothel was being run. In the absence of any penal provisions, customer though in a way would contribute to encourage prostitution and which leads to exploitation of women who are in penury, such person (customer) cannot be held liable for want of penal provision.
5. A perusal of the FIR in the instant case would also disclose that Sections 511, 373, 506, 366, 366(A) r/w Section 34 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 or petitioner had kidnapped minor girls. Hence, continuation of proceedings against petitioner would be abuse of process of law.
6. In the light of 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, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R (1) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(2) Proceeding pending in S.C. No.1356/2014 registered by H.A.L. Police Station, Bangalore, for the offence punishable under Sections 511, 373, 506, 366, 366(A) read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 9 of the ITP Act,1956 are hereby quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner herein and he is acquitted of above said offences.
In view of 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 RU