IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRL.P. NO.6937/2019 BETWEEN 1. SRI RAJESH KUMAR S/O RAJEEV SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, MANAGER, R/AT MANJUSHREE NILAYA, SANTHEKATTE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-574118 2. SRI CHETHAN S/O PURUSHOTHAMA KOTE, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT SHANMUGA TEMPLE ROAD, DARBE PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.-574201 3 . SRI PRAVEEN S/O LATE BHOJA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT BABURAO COMPOUND, KALLAVI ROAD, KOTTARA MANGALURU-560001 (BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN, ADV. FOR SRI VISHWAJITH SHETTY S, ADV.) ...PETITIONERS AND STATE OF KARNATAKA PANAMBURU POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.795/2018 (CR.NO.88/2016 OF PANNAMBURU POLICE STATION) ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C.-II COURT, MANGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1),3(2A),4 AND 5 OF I.T.P. ACT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the point that arises for consideration is the incident that has already been addressed by this court and interpreting the provisions of Section 13 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) has held that the investigation and charge sheet are to be by an officer of the rank of Police Inspector and hence the charge sheet laid by the Sub- Inspector is contrary to the provisions of Section 13 of the Act.
3. Learned High Court Govt. Pleader would fairly submit that the petition by the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 may be allowed as they have been shown as customers. In that direction reliance is placed by the petitioners on the ruling of this court in the case of R.A.H.Siguran v. Shankare Gowda alias Shankara and Another. In the ruling reported in AIR 2017 SC 5141 the Apex Court held that the said ruling is no more good law, in so far as it relates to the first petitioner, and the Hon’ble Apex Court has reversed the finding rendered by this court in the case of Shankare Gowda @ Shankara vs. State by Madanayakanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru and Another, reported in ILR 2016 KAR 3067. Learned High Court Govt. Pleader would place reliance on the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.A.H..Siguran stated supra, wherein in paragraph No.13 the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold as under:-
“13. The question raised by the respondent is well answered by this Court in a number of decisions rendered in a different perspective. The matter of investigation by an officer not authorised by law has been held to be irregular. Indisputably, by the order of the Magistrate investigation was conducted by the Sub-Inspector, CBI who, after completion of investigation, submitted the charge-sheet. It was only during the trial, objection was raised by the respondent that the order passed by the Magistrate permitting the Sub-Inspector, CBI to investigate is without jurisdiction. Consequently, the investigation conducted by the officer is vitiated in law. Curiously enough the respondent has not made out a case that by reason of investigation conducted by the Sub-Inspector a serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice has been caused. It is well settled that invalidity of the investigation does not vitiate the result unless a miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby.”
4. In view of the above dictum, the petition by the first petitioner stands rejected. The petition by the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C. No.795/2018 pending on the file of the JMFC II Court, Mangaluru is hereby quashed in so far as it relates to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 only.
In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.1/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE Chs* CT-HR