IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17299 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

DOLY PRABHAT MAITHY W/O SRI PRABHAT MAITY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT MOTHA KHANA PANVEL RAIGARH MAHARASTRA - 410 206.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI GIREESHA R. J., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE BY ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE STATION BENGALURU - 560 058.

Digitally signed by REPRESENTED BY SPP SANJEEVINI J KARISHETT Y HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Location: High BENGALURU - 560 001.

Court of Karnataka …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C., (FILED U/S

528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.11.2025 PASSED IN CR.NO.395/2025 ON I.A. U/S 17(2) OF THE IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956 BY ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-II, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED THE PETITIONER I.A. U/S. 17(2) OF THE IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT 1956.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner – mother of the victim girl is before this Court calling in question an order dated 15.11.2025, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-II, Benglauru Rural District, whereby, an interlocutory application filed by the petitioner under Section 17(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’ for short), seeking custody of her daughter in Crime No.395/2025, comes to be rejected.

2. Heard Sri Gireesha R.J., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. The petitioner is said to be the mother of the victim child, who was rescued from a lodge, which was running a prostitution racket. The State then keeps the victim girl in the Child Welfare Home. The petitioner - mother of the victim files an application before the concerned Court under Section 17(2) of the Act, seeking custody of her daughter on the score that her daughter has now attained 18 years of age. Once the minor girl attains the age of 18, the daughter cannot be kept in the Child Welfare Home and she the daughter has to be handed over to the parents, one of whom is the petitioner, the mother of the victim. The concerned Court after rendering detailed reasons, rejected the said application on the score that the daughter was forced to prostitution by the petitioner – mother. This order of rejection is what is challenged before this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Section 17(2) of the Act can be pressed into service only when the victim girl attains the age of 18 years and she cannot be kept in the Child Welfare Home or under the custody of the State. Once the victim attains the age of

18 years, the mother is entitled to the said custody.

5. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor takes this Court through the entire material that lead to a raid in the lodge and registration of a crime in Crime No.395/2025. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet against several persons. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner - mother ought to have been booked for forcing her daughter for prostitution, which has not been done. It is an inadvertent omission. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would further contend that when an earlier crime had been registered against the petitioner – mother for the very offences under the Act and the application being filed by the petitioner mother, the child was released in favour of the mother. But, the mother again puts her daughter back into the same situation i.e., into the racket of prostitution, which has now become a crime in Crime No.395/2025. Be that as it may.

6. The issue now is, whether the victim – daughter of the petitioner who was rescued from a prostitution r