IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8451/2018 BETWEEN:
1. VIVEK J AMIN S/O JAGANNATH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O 57, HMT LAYOUT 1ST CROSS MATHIKERE BENGALURU.
2. BHARATH S/O PRABHAKAR AGED 22 YEARS R/O H. CROSS SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
3. PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O VASU AGED 24 YEARS R/O ARALAHALLI VILLAGE HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH A., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HENNUR POLICE, BENGALURU REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.1432/2016 PENDING BEFORE THE XLV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE C.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos. 6 to 8 in crime No. 27/2015 registered for the offence punishable under Section 370 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956.
2. On careful perusal of the contents of the FIR it would disclose that specific allegations are made against the petitioners that they were found at the place where brothel was being run and were customers at the brothel house.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.1728/2017 (MAHADEVA C vs STATE OF KARNATAKA), disposed of on 07.06.2017 has held that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act would not be attracted insofar as the petitioner therein is 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, 5 & 7 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, 5 and 7 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 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 petitioners are concerned, since it is not alleged that petitioners herein had indulged in trafficking of minor girls. On this ground also, prosecution cannot be proceeded against petitioners and continuation of said proceedings against them would be an abuse of process of law.
7. In the light of the 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.27/2015 registered by Hennur Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 370 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the ITP Act are hereby quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioners herein and they are acquitted of above said offences.
In view of the petition having been allowed on merits, I.A. No. 1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is rejected.
SD/- JUDGE *sp