IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2357/2019 BETWEEN:
HUBBANNA, S/O SIDDAMALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, CHINCHANASUR GRAMA, ALANDA TALUK, GULBARGA DISTRICT – 585 314.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. RANGANATH REDDY R., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SANJAY NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY – 560 001. (REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR), HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 01.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND REGISTRATION OF CASE IN S.C.NO.359/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH – 46).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner herein who is arraigned as accused No.4 in crime No.289/2015 registered for the offences punishable under Section 370 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 in before the Court for quashing of said proceedings.
2. On careful perusal of the contents of the FIR it would disclose that specific allegation is made against petitioner alleging that he was found at the place where brothel was being run and was a customer at soliciting the brothel house.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment/orders passed by this Court in support of his prayer for quashing the present proceedings by filing a memo and enclosing copies of said orders which are:
i. Crl.P. No. 1728/2017 (Mahadeva C. and Anr.
Vs. State of Karnataka) ii. Crl.P. No. 5808/2016 (Parvesh Chatri Vs. State of Karnataka) iii. Crl.P. No. 9682/2016 (Aswath @ Naveen Vs.
State of Karnataka) iv. Crl.P. No. 7056/2014 (Mohammed Rafi Vs.
State of Karnataka) v. Crl.P. No. 2208/2017 (Sendil Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka) In the above referred decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it came to be held that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act would not be attracted insofar as the petitioners therein are concerned, since, they were said to be customers or who were soliciting.
4. In fact, Coordinate Bench of this Court after examining and analyzing Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the ITP Act, 1956 has held that prosecution had failed to make out case against the accused persons therein for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the ITP Act.
5. A bare reading of the Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the ITP Act would clearly indicate that they are in no way attracted insofar as providing any punishment to the customers who were present at the venue where alleged brothel was being run. In the absence of any penal provisions, customers though are in a way contributing to encourage prostitution and which leads to exploitation of women who are in penury, such persons (customers) cannot be held as liable for want of penal provision.
6. A perusal of the FIR in the instant case would also disclose that Section 370(3) of IPC has also been invoked by the prosecution and it cannot be gain said by the prosecution that said penal provision would be attracted insofar as the petitioner is concerned since it is not alleged that petitioner herein had indulged in trafficking of minor girls. On this ground also, prosecution cannot proceed against petitioner and continuation of proceedings against him would be an abuse of process of law.
7. In the light of aforestated facts, I do not find any good ground to differ from the view expressed by Coordinate Bench of this Court and as such, present petition deserves to be allowed.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R I. Criminal Petition is allowed.
II. Proceeding pending in Crime No. 289/2015 registered by the Sanjay Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 370 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the ITP Act are quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner (Accused No.4) and he is acquitted of said offences.
Since, petition having been disposed of on merits, I.A.No.1/2019 for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is rejected.
SD/- JUDGE Mgn/-