Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 11 docs - [View All]
Section 5 in The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
Section 3 in The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
Section 4 in The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
Section 7 in The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
The Indian Penal Code

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Karnataka High Court
Sri Harish vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2017
Author: Anand Byrareddy
                              1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                    BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF APRIL 2017

                          BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.3371 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

Sri. Harish,
Son of Late P.Shivaprasad Rao,
Aged about 30 years,
Residing at No.5/1,
Coffee Board Layout,
Kempapura, Hebbal,
Bengaluru - 560 024.
                                           ...Petitioner
(By Shri Arun Shyam.M, Advocate)

AND:

The State of Karnataka,
By Banaswadi Police,
Through State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru - 560 001.

                                          ...Respondent
(By Shri Vijayakumar Majage, Additional
State Public Prosecutor)
                                 2




                             *****

       This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the
complaint, FIR in Crime No.212/2017 registered on 02.04.2017
on the file of the MMTC-I Mayo hall, Bengaluru for the
Offences punishable under Section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 alleging that the petitioner was
indulged in illegal offences under Section 376 of IPC Pursuant
thereto which are produced as documents 1 and 2 respectively
and etc.

      This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day,
the court made the following:



                          ORDER

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor is directed to take notice for the respondent.

2. It transpires that the Police, on receipt of credible information on 01.04.2017, had conducted a raid on a massage parlour, namely, M/s Galaxy Spa, at No.401, 2B, H.B.R. Layout, Kalyanagar, Bengaluru and they allegedly found some persons indulged in illegal activities and they had arrested 12 3 persons, including the petitioner and the Police claimed to have rescued five women from the premises and have registered a case in crime No.212/2017. It is in this background that the petitioner is before this Court claiming that, according to the prosecution itself, a raid has been conducted on the alleged information, without registering a First Information Report and without following the procedure under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (Hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for brevity) and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as "CrPC" for brevity) and therefore, is vitiated. In any event, the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out as the offences are under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Act, apart from 370 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the "IPC" for brevity).

3. It is pointed out that in similar circumstances, in Criminal Petition No.1479/2017, between Shivanna @ Shivu vs. State of Karnataka, dated 10.04.2017, this Court has 4 expressed that the sections invoked cannot be applied to the petitioner therein, if he was alleged to be a customer visiting the premises, which was raided. In that, Section 3 of the Act provides for punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing the premises to be used as brothel. Section 4 of the Acts provides for punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution. Section 5 of the Act provides for procuring, inducing or taking a person for the sake of prostitution. And Section 6 of the Act provides for detaining a person in the premises where prostitution is carried on. In view of these provisions, which are invoked not being applicable to the petitioner, the petition is summarily allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.212/2017 on the file of MMTC-I, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru stands quashed.

4. The Commissioner of Police is said to have published the petitioner's photograph and other details on the website of the Police and also on social media viz., twitter, to claim that he is one of the accused, which shall be deleted forthwith. 5

Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks.

Sd/-

JUDGE nv