IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3685/2014 BETWEEN:
Sri. Rajashekar K.N S/o Nanjunda Iyer Aged about 59 years No.116, 2nd Main, 4th Block Sharada Colony, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore – 560 079.
(By Sri Govindaraj for Sri Nehru P., Advs.,) AND:
State by Kodigehalli P.S Bangalore City Bangalore – 560 097.
…Petitioner ... Respondent (By Sri Sandesh J Chouta, SPP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.17554/2011 (Arising out of Cr.No.139/2010 of the respondent) pending on the file of C.M.M., Bangalore for the alleged offences P/U/S 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
This Criminal Petition Coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Though matter is listed for admission, taking into consideration that petition is of the year 2014, it is taken up for final disposal by consent of learned advocates.
2. Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.14 in C.C.No.17554/2011 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) is seeking for quashing of said proceedings.
3. A complaint came to be lodged by one Sri Puttaswamy Gowda, ACP, Yelahanka Sub-Division, Bengaluru, against the petitioner and 13 others alleging that he had received credible information that in the house bearing No.298, Kodigehalli Canara Bank Layout, 7th Cross, 5th Main Road, Bengaluru, prostitution was being carried on by Mr.Raju with 10 girls, with the help of brokers namely, Mani and Kumar and as such said premise came to be raided by him. Mani was arrested along with 10 girls and a sum of Rs.2,800/-, 8 mobile phones and a TVS Victor bike were seized under the mahazar. On account of petitioner being the owner of the house, he was arraigned as accused No.14.
4. Heard Sri Govindaraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Nehru.P, for the petitioner and Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, learned SPP appearing for the State. Perused the records.
5. It is the contention of Sri Govindaraj, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that entire charge sheet material does not disclose that petitioner had knowledge of alleged prostitution being carried on at his home and the commission of alleged offences by accused Nos.1 to 13 and the ingredients of Section 3 (2)(b) of the Act is not made out against petitioner (accused No.14). Even the prosecution material if uncontroverted, it would result in acquittal of the petitioner and as such, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner – accused would be a futile exercise. Hence, he prays for quashing of the proceedings.
6. Per contra, Sri.Sandesh J.Chouta, learned SPP appearing for the prosecution would rely upon the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. He contends that said witnesses have stated that petitioner was aware of the activities which was carried in the house owned by him namely, the activity of prostitution being carried on and as such, petitioner cannot feign ignorance or contend that he had no knowledge about such activity being carried in his premises. Hence, he contends that semblance of knowledge would suffice for prosecution to proceed against the owner of the building under Section 3 of the Act. Hence, he submits that initiation of proceedings against the petitioner is proper and continuation of the same is necessary and that there is no case made out by petitioner to quash the proceedings. The aspect of petitioner being aware of such activity being carried out or petitioner having knowledge of said fact, the prosecution would be able to establish this during course of trial. Hence, he prays for rejection of the petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for parties and considering the rival contentions raised at the bar as well as charge sheet materials made available to the Court by learned SPP appearing for State, it can be noticed that none of the witnesses have clearly or unambiguously stated that at any undisputed point of time petitioner as the owner of the house where alleged prostitution was being run, had knowledge about such prostitution activity being carried on in the house, which he had let out to accused No.13. On the other hand, statement of prosecution witnesses would disclose that they have only stated that petitioner had let out the house to accused No.13 and nothing beyond this fact have been stated by them. That by itself would not suffice to state the provision of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act is attracted.
10. Section 3 (2)(b) of the Act reads as under:-
“3. Punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel.-
(1) xxx (2) Any person who – (a) xxx (b) being the owner, the lessor or landlord or any premises or the agent of such owner, lessor or landlord, lets the same or any part thereof with the knowledge that the same or any part thereof intended to be used as a brothel, or is willfully a party to the use of such premises or any part thereof as a brothel, shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extent to two thousand rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five year and also with fine.”
(emphasis supplied by me) 8. Above reading of said provision would clearly indicate that emphasis is on the expression “knowledge”. In other words, the owner of the house who had knowledge about such activity namely, the activity of prostitution being carried out or run with his knowledge would attract above said provision. In the absence of any prima-facie material attributed against petitioner, that he had knowledge of prostitution being run in his house which he had let-out to accused No.13, continuation of proceedings against petitioner would only be abuse of process of law.
9. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that prayer sought for by the petitioner deserves to be granted. Hence, the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending against petitioner (accused No.14) in C.C.No.17554/2014 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.
(iii) Petitioner (accused No.14) is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
In view of disposal of main petition, I.A.No.1/2014 for stay does not survive for consideration and same is hereby rejected.
` VMB SD/- JUDGE