IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.20 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SRI MANILAL PATIL S/O HARILAL K. PATIL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT MADAVA G. TIMBER COMPANY NO.2, BANASAWADI, DOUBLE ROAD BANGALORE-560 043 … PETITIONER (BY SHRI. C.R.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KORAMANGALA POLICE REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.G. NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET AGAINST THIS PETITIONER IN CR.NO. 216/2014 (C.C.NO.11065/2015) FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3, 4, 5 & 7 OF ITP ACT AND SECTION 109 OF IPC AND SECTION 67 OF IT ACT OF RESPONDENT POLICE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE I ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard.
2. Shri C.R. Raghavendra Reddy, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, police have conducted a raid on a brothel house and apprehended the petitioner. Petitioner has been charged with commission of offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (‘the Act’ for short). Petitioner is a customer and therefore, the said penal provisions of the Act are not attracted against him.
3. The submission of learned advocate for the petitioner is not disputed the learned HCGP.
4. This Court has taken a consistent view that the penal provisions of the Act are not applicable so far as customers in a brothel house are concerned. [See Narasimha Murthy vs. The State by Hennuru Police Station and another (Crl.P.No.5275/2017 D.D. 07.12.2017)].
5. In the circumstances, following the said decision, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.11065/2015 (Cr.No.216/2014) pending on the file of I A.C.M.M., Bengaluru, are quashed, so far as the petitioner is concerned.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV