Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J.
Hemanth S/o Dharampal - Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka By Banasawadi Traffic P.S. Rep by S.P.P. High Court Building Bangalore-560 001 - Respondent
Criminal Petition NO.8879 of 2018
Decided On : 04-12-2018
Immoral Traffic (Prevention Act) - Brothel House - Penal provisions not applicable to customers
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was apprehended during a police raid on a brothel house and charged under Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The petitioner argued that as a customer, the penal provisions of the Act did not apply to him.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the petitioner's argument and referred to a previous decision where it was held that the penal provisions of the Act are not applicable to customers in a brothel house. Based on this precedent, the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
Issues: Interpretation of the applicability of penal provisions under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act to customers in a brothel house.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on a previous decision to establish that the penal provisions of the Act do not apply to customers in a brothel house.
Final Decision: The proceedings against the petitioner were quashed based on the finding that the penal provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act do not apply to customers in a brothel house.
1. Heard.
2. Shri. Chandrashekara K., learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, police have conducted a raid on the brothel house and apprehended the petitioner. He has been charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention Act), 1956 (‘the Act’ for short). Petitioner is customer and therefore, the said penal provisions of the Act are not attracted against him.
3. The submission of learned advocate for the petitioner is not disputed the learned HCGP.
4. This Court has taken a consistent view that the penal provisions of the Act are not applicable so far as customers in a brothel house are concerned. [See Narasimha Murthy vs. The State by Hennuru Police Station and another (Crl.P.No.5275/2017 D.D. 07.12.2017)].
5. In the circumstances, following the said decision, the proceedings in C.C.No.1398/2010 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, are quashed, so far as the petitioner is concerned.
The Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
