IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5477 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

1. MR. MANJUNATH B. G., S/O GUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT BINDENAHALLI VILLAGE DEVALAPURA HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA – 571 445.

2. MR. VIJAYKUMAR S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS Digitally signed by RESIDING AT KRADAHALLI VILLAGE NAGAVENI DEVALAPURA HOBLI Location: H igh NAGAMANGALA TALUK Court of Karnataka MANDYA – 571 445.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI BHARGAVA D.BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY BELLUR POLICE STATION NAGAMANGALA SUB-DIVISION REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. MR. DHANRAJ AGE: MAJOR POLICE INSPECTOR BELLUR POLICE STATION NAGAMANGALA SUB-DIVISION PIN CODE – 571 418.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PLEASED TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 26.01.2019 FILED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE IN CR.NO.241/2017 IN C.C.NO.477/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NAGAMANGALA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 OF THE IMMORAL TRAFFIC(PREVENTION) ACT IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED (AS PER ANNEXURE-A).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners - accused Nos.3 and 4 are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.477/2019, pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

2. Heard Sri. Bhargava D. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. B.N.Jagadeeseha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of BARATH S.P. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1838, which reads as follows:

“…. …. ….

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The proceedings against the accused are pending consideration in the aforesaid C.C.No.109 of 2018 where the petitioner is accused No.4. The petitioner is arrayed as accused for the reason that he was caught as a customer in the brothel when the search or raid took place on 24-09-2015 and the proceedings are instituted for offences punishable under Sections 3 to 6 of the Act and Section 370(3) of the IPC. It is germane to notice Sections 3 to 6 of the Act and they read as follows:

“3. Punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel.—(1) Any person who keeps or manages, or acts or assists in the keeping or management of, a brothel shall be punishable on first conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.

(2) Any person who—

(a) being the tenant, lessee, occupier or person in charge of any premises, uses, or knowingly allows any other person to use, such premises or any part thereof as a brothel, or (b) being the owner, lessor or landlord of any premises or the agent of such owner, lessor or landlord, lets the same or any part thereof with the knowledge that the same or any part thereof is intended to be used as a brothel, or is willfully a party to the use of such premises or any part thereof as a brothel, shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also wit