IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6443 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Tarun Kumar, S/o. Bhaskar Naidu, Aged about 29 years, R/at No.41/514, 9th Cross, Bhuvaneshwari Nagara, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru-560085.
(By Sri. Abijith M.M, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka by Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru District, Rep. by Government Pleader, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001.
2. Nanjegowda S., Police Inspector, Mico Layout Police Station, Mico Layout, Bengaluru City-560076.
(By Smt. K.P.Yoshodha, HCGP for R1 & R2) ...Petitioner …Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings of the crime No.833/2014, in C.C.No.2981/2016 registered by the Mico Layout Police Station, in offence punishable under Section 3, 4 & 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act 1956, now pending on the file on the learned 6th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No. 6366/2017, in similar circumstances, has been pleased to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner who was labeled as customer under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and it was held that Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Act are inapplicable to the petitioner/customer therein. It is submitted that the instant petitioner is also similarly situated. Learned HCGP would fairly admit the same.
3. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Criminal Petition was pleased to observe and hold as follows : -
“2. On careful perusal of the entire charge sheet papers it is seen that the petitioner has arraigned as Accused No.7 and the allegation made against him is that, he was found at the brothel house situated at No.1025, 1st Floor, 5th Main Road, Bilekahalli Main Road, Vijaya Bank layout, as a customer. In this context, this court earlier has relied upon various decisions and came to the conclusion that there is no provision under the ITP Act to punish the customer. It is worth to mention here the rulings of this court and other High Courts with regard to the above said aspect, which are,-
(i) 2015(3) Crimes 281 (AP) (Goenka Sajan Kumar Vs. State of A.P. Rep by P.P. high Court of A.P.] (ii) Crl.P. No.7056/2014 [Mohammed Rafi Vs.State of Karnataka] (iii) Crl. P. No. 7110/2011 [ Suraj Vs. State of Karnataka] (iv) Crl. P. 5808/2016 [ Pravesh Chatri Vs. State of Karnataka] (v) W.P. No.56504/2015 [Mahesh Hebbar @ Mahesh Vs. The Station House Officer, Banaswadi Police Station] (vi) Crl.P. No.9682/2016 [ Aswath @ Naveen Vs. State of Karnataka] (vii) Crl.P. 8055/2016 [ Raghavendra @ Raghu Vs. State of Karnataka] (viii) Crl. P. No.200782/2016 [ Shivaraj Vs. State of Karnataka] 3. In all the above noted decisions, the court has considered the above said points and it is observed that Sections 3, 4, 5 & 7 of the ITP Act are not all attracted so far as the petitioners therein, who are the customers of the brothel house. In fact, this court has consistently came to the conclusion after analyzing the above said provisions 3, 4, 5 & 7 that, the constitution of the offences are not made-out sofar as the customers are concerned.
4. It is evident from reading of the above provisions that,-
Section-3 of the Act is a section which provides punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as brothel.
Section-4 provides for punishment of living on the earnings of the prostitution.
Section-5 provides procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution.
Section-7 applies to prostitution and in or in the vicinity of public place.
(Emphasis Supplied) Therefore, the above said provisions are in no way attracted providing any punishment sofar as the customer is concerned. Though it is felt by this court that the customer virtually encourages prostitution, and exploit the victim for money, but in the absence of any specific penal provision, it cannot be said that he is liable for any prosecution for the above said offences.
5. It is clear that, in the above noted decisions, this court has considered the above said point and it is specifically observed that the provisions under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the ITP Act or Section 370 of IPC do not attracted sofar as the customers are concerned.
6. In the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any strong reason to differ from the above said consistent view taken by this court in the above referred cases. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed ”
4. In the light of the consistent view expressed by this Court in the light of the provisions of the Act, the instant petition also requires to be allowed. Accordingly, the following order : -
(i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.
2981/2016 on the file of the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No. 833/2014 stands quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE ckl