IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 36185 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. VINAYAKUMAR MELINAMANI S/O M. MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT KANDAKURU, KUSTAGI, KANDAKUR, KOPPAL, KARNATAKA - 583 277 2. SRI. RAMACHAND S/O NARAYANI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT ASHIHAL TANDA, ASHIHAL, RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 125 …PETITIONERS Digitally signed (BY SRI. MOHANKUMARA D., ADVOCATE)

by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETT Y AND:

Location: High Court of Karnataka

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY UPPARPET POLICE STATION, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. PI CCB POLICE INSPECTOR, W AND N SQUAD, CCB, N.T. PETE, BANGALORE - 560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS, IN SO FAR AS ACCUSED NO.23 AND 24/PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 ARE CONCERNED, INITIATED BY THE LEARNED 1 ACJM, BENGALURU, IN C.C NO.19146/2018, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 188, 370A, 370(3), 294 R/W 109 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT UPPARPET POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, IN CRIME NO.0277/2014, VIDE ANNEXURE-C.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.19146/2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 370A, 370(3), 294 read with Section 109 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri. Mohankumara D., learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

3. Facts in brief are as follows:

A complaint is registered on 22.08.2014 by respondent No.2, on the credible information received, for the offences punishable under the IPC and proceedings were initiated in Crime No.277/2014. The petitioners were customers, who were found at the time when the premises was searched. Result of the search was seizure of several materials.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were customers in the brothel when the search was conducted by the respondent-police. A customer, in a brothel/Spa, cannot be hauled into criminal proceedings is the consistent view taken by this Court in plethora of cases. This Court while considering the purport of the Act and the Code in the case of BARATH S.P. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA in Crl.P.No.1757/2022 disposed on

24.03.2022, has held 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