IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5176/2019 BETWEEN SRI MAHESH @ MAHESH GOWDA S/O SRI N JAVARE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.2378/2, NEW KANTHA RAJ URS ROAD, K G KOPPAL, MYSURU-570005.
(BY SRI R B SADASIVAPPA, ADV.) AND STATE BY KUVEMPUNAGAR POLICE REP. BY LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001 (BY SRI SHOWRI H.R, HCGP.) ...PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM IN C.C.NO.166/2012 (FIR NO.74/2010) WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MYSURU AS FAR AS PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. The petitioner is calling in question, the prosecution lodged against him along with others for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.6. That the respondent – Police have filed chargesheet and in the said charge sheet, he has been described as a customer.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the decisions rendered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.1728/2017 and Criminal Petition No.315/2019 and in the light of the view taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petition is liable to be allowed.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader would fairly admit that the petitioner has been described as customer in the chargesheet and hence, in the light of the consistent view adopted by this Court, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
5. The submission of learned High Court Government Pleader is placed on record.
6. This Court in Criminal Petition No.1728/2017 and Criminal Petition No.315/2019 has been pleased to allow the petitions and quash the proceeding insofar as the petitioners, who were described as customers were concerned.
7. On careful perusal of the contents of the FIR it would disclose that specific allegations are made against the petitioner and that he was found at the place where brothel was being run and was a customer at the brothel house.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the 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) 9. In the above referred decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it has been held that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act would not be attracted insofar where the petitioners therein are termed as customers.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Hence, the following;
O R D E R I. Criminal Petition is allowed.
II. Proceeding pending in C.C.No.166/2012 (FIR No.74/2010) pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Mysuru, for offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the ITP Act are hereby quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner herein and he is acquitted of said offences.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, the same is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-
CT-HR