IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9694/2018 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PRADEEP S/O SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.17/146 10TH ‘D’ CROSS 6TH MAIN ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE-560 086.
2. SRI. DEVANNA S/O AJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.10, 6TH CROSS J.C. NAGARA, KURUBARAHALLI BENGALURU-560086.
3. SRI. GOPI @ GOPAL S/O HEMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.132, KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560060.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.B.LETHIF, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY UPPARAPET POLICE BANGALORE CITY REP. BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.1417/2018 (CRIME No.277/2014) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE OF UPPARPET POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 370A, 370(3) 294, 188 R/W 109 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. Lethif B, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners and Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.12, 13 and 30 in S.C.No.1417/2018 pending on the file of LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 294, 370(A) and 370(3) read with Section 109 IPC has sought for quashing of said proceedings.
3. It is submitted by Sri. Lethif B, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners that petitioners are customers who had visited bar and restaurant running under the name and style of “Casino Royal Bar and Restaurant”. It is further submitted that similarly placed co-accused namely, who are also customers in the Bar when the purported raid came to be conducted by respondent-Police, had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.3026/2017 (disposed of on 11.12.2017) and Crl.P.No.7334/2018 (disposed of on 31.10.2018) and proceedings against them has been quashed and as such, he prays for proceedings against petitioners herein also be quashed.
4. Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP would fairly admit that this fact or in other words, he would not dispute the same.
5. Co-ordinate Benches of this Court have recorded a finding that petitioners therein were customers and allegations made in the complaint as well as charge sheet material against co-accused was that they had thrown money on the girls and enjoying the dance made by said girls. Said petitioners were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 294, 370(A) and 370(3) read with Section109 IPC. Co-ordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.3026/2017 disposed of on 11.12.2017 has held:
“4. Under the similar facts and circumstances pertaining to some other case in C.C.No.28501/2015 Court had occasion to deal with the said aspects where offences under Sections 188, 370(3), 370(A), 294 r/w 109 of IPC are invoked so far as the customers are concerned. This Court in the said case in Criminal Petition No.7935/2016 dated 28.11.2016 has categorically in detail discussed the above said provisions and held that those provisions are not attracted so far as the customers are concerned. In this case also similar facts and legal aspects are involved. There is no reasons to deviate from the above said observation made by this Court. Apart from that, Section 188 of IPC cannot be invoked against the petitioners by the police, as there is a specific bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C Section 370(3) of IPC defines, whoever for the purpose of exploitation recruits, transports, harbours, transfers or receives a person or persons for the purpose of trafficking, such persons is punishable under Section 370 of IPC and if the involvement of more than one victim, then sub-section (3) of Section 370 of IPC is attracted. No where it is stated that the petitioners have indulged in exploitation, recruiting, transporting, harbouring, transferring or receiving any person. In this regard, Section 370(A) of IPC is also referable to exploitation of trafficking any persons. There is no allegation whatsoever that these petitioners have exploited for wrongful gain.
5. Section 294 of IPC is also not attracted. It is actually referable to the victims who actually does any obscene act in any public place or by singing, reciting, or uttering any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place. There is no such allegation against these petitioners. Under the above said circumstances xxxxx against them.”
6. In these circumstances, by following the decisions rendered in Crl.P.No.3026/2017, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending against petitioners in S.C.No.1417/2018 before LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-72) are hereby quashed.
(iii) Petitioners are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 188, 294, 370(A) and 370(3) read with Section 109 IPC.
SD/- JUDGE RU