IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6135/2017 BETWEEN:
SRI. PRAKASH RAO UDUPI S/O LATE JAGADISH RAO AGED 58 YEARS R/O NO.534, LAKSHMIVENKATESHWAR NILAYA, I BLOCK, B.D.A. LAYOUT BANASHANKARI BENGALURU - 560 098.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. VEERANNA G TIGADI., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE MALUR POLICE STATION, MALUR REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ALL THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.352/2016 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 370(2)(3) AND 342 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MALUR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri.Veeranna G. Tigadi, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is said to be the Manager of R.J.Hotel and Resort situated at Malur-Hosur Road and on 20.03.2016 at about 4.30 p.m. Sub-Inspector of Malur Police Station was on patrol duty and he is said to have received a credible information that said company had organized a programme where women dressed in improper fashion would be dancing half- nude and as such, he is said to have forwarded a communication to the Deputy Superintendent of Police seeking search warrant and forwarded the same through his staff and on receipt of search warrant, secured his staff and proceeded to said hotel, conducted a raid and half-nude women, who were said to be dancing to the tune of film songs and music and as such they were taken into custody and it was revealed that petitioner was the manager of the resort. It is the further case of prosecution that Sri.Nagaraj Yalamchari, Sri. Neeravari, Sri. Dheeraj and Sri.Kranthi Kumar had brought those women from Andhra Pradesh assuring them of employment and money and with the help of petitioner had wrongfully restrained them in a room and were made to dance at the hotel.
3. After completing investigation charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.352/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 370(2) (3), 342 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Hence, petitioner is before this Court for quashing of said proceedings contending that:
Accused Nos.2 and 6 against whom similar allegations had been made, were acquitted by this Court by quashing the proceedings and as such, petitioner seeks for quashing the petition on parity. It is further contended that even without registration of FIR raid was conducted and FIR was registered after having arrested accused persons including petitioner and as such, proceedings are liable to be quashed. In fact, Sri.Veeranna G. Tigadi, learned counsel appearing for petitioner is justified in contending that in Crl.P.No.6039/2016, which was filed by the accused persons this Court had opined that even according to credible information received by the police, programme was lopsided and an all night programme and there was sufficient time for the Sub-Inspector for registration of FIR and thereafter raid could have been conducted and in the absence of same, proceedings would certainly get vitiated. In fact, Coordinate Bench had observed:
“4. In view of the same, the learned State Public Prosecutor would make a weak attempt to justify the proceedings and he would submit that the action of the Sub- Inspector was in the nature of a preliminary enquiry and after finding that a cognizable offence was, in fact, being committed, if he had chosen to return to the Police Station, registered a FIR and then had returned to the place of occurrence, nothing would have been found and evidence would have been lost and therefore, his actions certainly be saved as he had obtained the search warrant even before proceeding to the spot. This contention may not be accepted as apparently the programme was an all night programme and on receiving information form his men, who had first entered the premises to find out if there was a programme going on, there was sufficient time available for the Sub-Inspector for registration of a crime and thereafter, to conduct a raid, in the absence of which, proceedings are certainly vitiated.”
4. Charge sheet material also do not disclose about any act of petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 370(2) (3), 342 r/w Section 34 of IPC being attracted and as such petitioner would stand on the same footing as that of accused Nos.2 and 6 who are already acquitted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and on similar ground petitioner would also be entitled to the relief sought for.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending against petitioner in C.C.No.352/2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 370(2) (3), 342 r/w Section 34 of IPC on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, is hereby quashed and petitioner is acquitted of said offences.
In view of petition having been allowed, I.A.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration and it is rejected.
SD/- JUDGE DR