IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 5783/2017 BETWEEN SRI. ESHWAR, S/O DODDANNA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO.172, SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD, BSK II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 101 PERMANENT ADDRESS AT ARASIKERE VILLAGE, ARASIKERE POST, NIDAGAL HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DIST-570 101 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYASIMHA K. P., ADV.) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS J. P. NAGARA POLICE, BENGALURU-560 016 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.758/2015 IN C.C.NO.2891/2016 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3, 4, 57, OF ITP ACT AND U/S 370 OF IPC, FILED BY THE J.P NAGAR P.S., IT IS PENDING ON 44TH ACMM, BENGALURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION A/W IA NO.1/2017 THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perused the records.
2. The Inspector of Police, J.P.Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru has lodged the complaint stating, he received a credible information that, at J.P.Nagar, 2nd Phase, 18th Main, 100 Feet Road, opposite to Canara Bank in Property No.32 in the 2nd floor, some people are doing some business under the heading -
“Hi guys I am Priyanka waiting for decent guy no broker here” -
and they were running a brothel house and exploiting some ladies for the purpose of prostitution, etc and he requested the jurisdictional police to take appropriate action. The said case was registered by the Head Constable in Crime No.758/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 read with Section 370 of IPC. The said Police Inspector himself had visited the said spot and conducted the raid and thereafter, lodged the complaint. The Police Sub-Inspector is the person who investigated the matter and he recorded the statement of so many witnesses and laid the charge sheet before the Court for the above said offences. The said Police Inspector, J.P. Nagar Police Station though he is a Police Inspector, he has not investigated the matter, but he lodged the complaint after raid. Though the mahazar and raiding of the said premises is in the nature of the investigation, that is not sufficient to hold that the said Police Inspector is the Investigating Officer who has filed the charge sheet. The Police Officer specially authorized under Section 13 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, who is a Special Officer, who is competent person to investigate and file the charge sheet.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the said Police Inspector before the raid has not even followed Section 15 of the said Act where it refers to search without warrant. If a Special Officer appointed under Section 13 of the Act has got reasonable grounds to believe that an offence punishable under this Act has been or is being committed in respect of a person living in any premises, and that search of the premises cannot be made without undue delay, in turn, such officer may, after recording the grounds on his belief, enter and search such premises without a warrant. In this particular case, such details in the complaint are not available. The material with regard to, whether there was time available to the Police Inspector, J.P.Nagar to obtain search warrant from the competent authority before raiding the said place, is not forthcoming from the facts.
4. Under the above said circumstances, it is just and necessary to look into the provision under Sections 13 and 14 of the Act. Section 13 refers to appointment of Special Police Officer and Advisory Board for the purpose of conducting investigation of any offence under this Act. Section 14 refers to, a Special Officer, if he requires assistance of any other officer subordinate to him to arrest the accused, he can authorize him to do so. There is no mention that the Police Inspector who lodged the complaint is a authorized special officer and has only taken the assistance of Sub-Inspector who has laid the charge sheet, for his assistance to arrest the accused. The above said legal aspects have already been covered in various decisions of this Court particularly in Crl.P No.8115/2016 between Sri.Pavithrananda Raju Vs. State, in another Crl.P No.5808/2016 between Sri.Pravesh Chatri Vs. State of Karnataka, in Crl.P. No.9682/2016 between Aswath @ Naveen Vs. State of Karnataka, in Crl.P No.7056/2014 between Shri.Mohammed Rafi Vs. State of Karnataka and in another reported ruling ILR 2016 KAR 3067 between Shankare Gowda @ Shankara Vs. State by Madanayakanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru and another. In all these cases, the effect of Sections 13 and 14 have been in detail considered by this Court and ultimately the Court came to the conclusion that the Police Officer, who is not authorized under Section 13 cannot investigate and file any charge sheet. The same principle is also applicable to the present petition. Under the above said circumstances, when the investigation and raid has been done by an Officer without any authority, the same cannot be allowed to be continued. Therefore, the entire investigation proceedings are vitiated by serious illegalities. Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the entire proceedings against this petitioner deserves to be quashed. Hence the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.2891/2016 on the file of 44th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 read with Section 370 of IPC, is hereby quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner is concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*