1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1[SECTION]TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3[SECTION]2[SECTION] OF 2018 BETWEEN: MR G RAJESH KUMAR S/O. GOPALA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 2[SECTION] YEARS RESIDING AT NO.[SECTION]/222, MUGAPERA WEST, CHENNAI-[SECTION]0003[SECTION]. PETITIONER (BY SRI: NATARAJ D, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JEEVAN BHEEMANAGAR, POLICE STATION BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU - [SECTION][SECTION]0001. 2. AISHA POLICE INSPECTOR, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, WOMEN AND NARCOTICS SQUAD, N.T.PETE, BANGALORE - 2. REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, 2 BANGALORE. RESPONDENTS (BY SMT: NAMITHA MAHESH, B.G., HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.[SECTION]82 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET AGAINST HIM IN S.C.NO.21[SECTION]/2018 WITH CR.NO.21[SECTION]/201[SECTION] REGISTERED AT JEEVAN BHEEMA NAGAR POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3,[SECTION],[SECTION],[SECTION] OF I.T.P ACT AND SEC.3[SECTION]0 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE XLVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE(CCH-[SECTION][SECTION]). THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER
This petition is filed under [SECTION] of [ACT] seeking to quash the FIR and the final report in Cr.No.21[SECTION]/201[SECTION] of Jeevan Bheemanagar Police Station pending on the file of the XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru(CCH-[SECTION][SECTION]) for the offences punishable under [SECTION] of [ACT] and [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 19[SECTION][SECTION] in so far as the same relates to the petitioner/accused No.[SECTION].
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
The second respondent -Police Inspector, City Crime Branch, Women and Narcotics Squad, N.T. Pete, Bengaluru lodged information before the first respondent-[ENTITY], alleging that on 02.09.201[SECTION], at about [SECTION].[SECTION][SECTION] p.m., the informant received credible information that some illegal activities were being carried on in 'Touch Spa' and when checked in the Google, a website by name 'Touch up Spa and Excite Spa' opened and it revealed all kinds of massage were offered to the public and when the first respondent- Police along with the staff and panchas conducted a raid on Paradise Spa, 2nd Floor, L-8, Lava Complex, 10th Main Road, J.B.Nagar, 3rd Phase, HAL within the limits of respondent No.1 -police it was discovered that the accused persons were running a prostitution racket.
3. On the basis of the above information, FIR came to be registered against [SECTION] accused persons and after investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the petitioner herein and other eight accused persons for the offences punishable under [SECTION] of [ACT] and [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 19[SECTION][SECTION] (for short "ITP Act, 19[SECTION][SECTION]").
[SECTION]. The petitioner has raised two fold contentions:-
(i) The case of the prosecution, even if accepted to be true, does not satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged in the FIR and the charge-sheet.
(ii) There are no allegations against the petitioner herein in so far as the offence under [SECTION] 3[SECTION] of [ACT]. The allegations thereof relate only to accused Nos.1 to [SECTION].
[SECTION]. In the course of the argument, in addition to the above grounds, it is argued, that the investigation into the alleged incident and the preparation of the panchanama before registration of the FIR is bad in law. In support of the argument, learned counsel has referred to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.[SECTION][SECTION]2[SECTION]0/201[SECTION] wherein this Court while dealing with similar situation has referred to the decisions in Crl.P.No.[SECTION]110/2011, Crl.P.No.[SECTION]0[SECTION][SECTION]/201[SECTION], Crl.P.No.9[SECTION]82/201[SECTION], Crl.P.No.[SECTION]808/201[SECTION], W.P.No.[SECTION][SECTION][SECTION]0[SECTION]/201[SECTION], Crl.P.No.19[SECTION]9/201[SECTION] and also the decision rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of GOENKA SAJAN KUMAR vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in 201[SECTION](3) Crimes 281 (A.P.) on these points.
[SECTION]. I have perused the FIR and the orders relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The sole ground on which the petitioner herein is arrayed as the accused in the above crime is that he was present at the spot during the raid, indicating that he was a customer who had gone to the spot for massage. The provisions of the ITP Act, 19[SECTION][SECTION] invoked by the first respondent do not get attracted to the facts alleged against the petitioner. [SECTION] of the ITP Act, 19[SECTION][SECTION] deal with the punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. [SECTION] of the ITP Act, 19[SECTION][SECTION] pertains to punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution. [SECTION] of the ITP Act, 19[SECTION][SECTION] refers to the procuring, inducing or taking (person) for the sake of prostitution. [SECTION] of the ITP Act, 19[SECTION][SECTION] deals about detaining a person in the premises where prostitution is carried out. [SECTION] deals with prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places. A person who visits brothel house only as a customer is not covered by any of the above provisions or any other provision of the ITP Act, 19[SECTION][SECTION]. In the decisions referred above, in similar fact situation, the proceedings have been quashed solely on that score.
[SECTION]. The allegations made against the petitioner and the material collected against the petitioner do not show the commission of any of the offences alleged against him in the FIR and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are contrary to the decision in the case of [PRECEDENT], and the law laid down in the case of LALITHA KUMARI vs. GOVERNMENT OF U.P. reported in (201[SECTION]) 2 SCC 1. For both these reasons, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The FIR and the charge-sheet in Cr.No.21[SECTION]/201[SECTION] (S.C.No.21[SECTION]/2018) on the file of the XLV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is quashed.
[CASE NUMBER] does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is dismissed as unnecessary.
JUDGE psg*