IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6707 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
Sri.Shekar @ Shekar Marakal, S/o Ganappa Marakal, Aged about 45 years, R/a Anugraha Lodge, Owner, Challakeri Circle, Near NH Road, Saraswathipuram, Chitradurga – 577 501. and R/a Kokkarani Aread, H.No.5/73, Kujanur Village – 574 105. Udupi Taluk and District.
(By Sri.D.Mohan Kumar, Advocate) AND:
State by Chitradurga Police Station, Represented by SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
(By Sri. I. S. Promod Chandra, SPP-II) …Petitioner ...Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside quash the FIR and charge Sheet submitted by the Respondent Police in C.C.No.1724/2015 in Cr.No.152/2015 which is pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Chitradurga.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1724/2015 (Crime No.152/2015), pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Chitradurga.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP II for the respondent-State.
3. The petitioner herein is shown as accused No.1. The allegations against the petitioner is that on 15.04.2015, petitioner/accused No.1 was found running a brothel in his lodge by name Anugraha Lodge situated at National Highway, Chitradurga Town. During the raid, accused Nos.2 and 3 were taken into custody and incriminating materials were collected from the spot of offence.
4. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the search and seizure conducted by the Investigating Officer is opposed to the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. In support of this submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the order of this Court in Crl.P.9680/2016 dated 30.06.2017. Further, learned counsel submitted that the impugned proceedings suffer from basic infirmities in as much as substantial investigation was conducted by the very same officer who conducted the raid and lodged the report against the petitioner and the other accused persons. In support of this submission, learned counsel has relied on the decision of this Court in Crl.P.No.6124/2017 dated 16.10.2017 and the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs. The State of Punjab in Criminal Appeal No.1880/2011.
5. Learned SPP-II does not dispute the fact that the petitioner is prosecuted in his capacity as the owner of the lodge wherein the alleged offence is stated to have been committed. Further, in so far as the compliance of the requirements of Section 15(2) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, learned SPP-II fairly concedes that no woman panch was present during the search and seizure. Likewise, he admits the fact that substantial investigation was conducted in the instant case by the Dy.SP of Chitradurga Circle, who conducted the raid and seized incriminating materials by drawing the panchnama and thereafter proceeded to lodge the complaint. The said officer himself arrested the accused and produced them before the Court.
6. Having regard to these facts and in view of the law expounded in the decisions referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Chitradurga in C.C.No.1724/2015 are hereby quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-