IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8817/2018 BETWEEN:
1. Sri.Neelesh Kumar, S/o Sri.Abjaram Choudari, Aged about 22 years, C/o.Sri.Krishnamurthy Ram, 8th Cross, Karagappa Garden, S.R.Nagar, Bengaluru-560 027.
2. Sri.Vishnu Kumar, S/o.Sri.Dhannaramji, Aged about 23 years, C/o.Sri.Krishnamurthy Ram, 8th Cross, Karagappa Garden, S.R.Nagar, Bengaluru-560 027.
(By Sri.Bhargav N, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Amruthahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City.
(By Sri.S.Rachaiah, HCGP) ... Petitioners ... Respondent This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying to quash FIR in Crime No.96/2018 registered by the respondent police against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 370 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, pending before CMM Court, Bengaluru.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.
3 and 4 in crime No. 96/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 370 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956.
2. On careful perusal of the contents of the FIR it would disclose that specific allegations are made against the petitioners that they were found at the place where brothel was being run and they were customers at the brothel house.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the order passed by this Court in the case of MAHADEVA C. AND ANR. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA in Criminal Petition No.1728/2017 in support of their prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against them.
4. In the above referred decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it came to be held 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 or who were soliciting.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 the petitioners are concerned since it is not alleged that petitioner herein had indulged in trafficking of minor girls. On this ground also, prosecution cannot proceed against petitioners and continuation of proceedings against them would be abuse of process of law.
8. 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 Crime No.96/2018 registered by the Amruthahalli Police Station, Bengaluru District, for the offence punishable under Sections 370 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the ITP Act are hereby quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioners herein and they are acquitted of said offences.
III. In view of the petition having been disposed of on merits, I.A. No. 1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE ag