1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5176/2019

BETWEEN

SRI MAHESH @ MAHESH GOWDA

S/O SRI N JAVARE GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

R/AT NO.2378/2,

NEW KANTHA RAJ URS ROAD,

K G KOPPAL, MYSURU-570005.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI R B SADASIVAPPA, ADV.)

AND

STATE BY

KUVEMPUNAGAR POLICE

REP. BY LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT BUILDING

BENGALURU-560001

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SHOWRI H.R, HCGP.)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF

CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST

HIM IN C.C.NO.166/2012 (FIR NO.74/2010) WHICH IS

PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL

CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MYSURU AS FAR AS

PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN.

THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned High Court Government Pleader.

2.

The petitioner is calling in question, the

prosecution lodged against him along with others for the

offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The petitioner is

arrayed as accused No.6. That the respondent – Police

have filed chargesheet and in the said charge sheet, he

has been described as a customer.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

place reliance on the decisions rendered by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition

No.1728/2017 and Criminal Petition No.315/2019 and

in the light of the view taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court, the petition is liable to be allowed.

3

4.

Learned High Court Government Pleader

would fairly admit that the petitioner has been

described as customer in the chargesheet and hence, in

the light of the consistent view adopted by this Court,

the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

5.

The submission of learned High Court

Government Pleader is placed on record.

6.

This

Court

in

Criminal

Petition

No.1728/2017 and Criminal Petition No.315/2019 has

been pleased to allow the petitions and quash the

proceeding insofar as the petitioners, who were

described as customers were concerned.

7.

On careful perusal of the contents of the FIR

it would disclose that specific allegations are made

against the petitioner and that he was found at the

place where brothel was being run and was a customer

at the brothel house.

4

8.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

has relied upon the orders passed by this Court in

respect of his prayer for quashing the present

proceedings by filing a memo and enclosing copies of

the said orders which are as follows:

i. Crl.P. No. 1728/2017 (Mahadeva C. and Anr. Vs.

State of Karnataka)

ii. Crl.P. No. 5808/2016 (Parvesh Chatri Vs. State of

Karnataka)

iii. Crl.P. No. 9682/2016 (Aswath @ Naveen Vs. State

of Karnataka)

iv. Crl.P. No. 7056/2014 (Mohammed Rafi Vs. State

of Karnataka)

v. Crl.P. No. 2208/2017 (Sendil Kumar Vs. State of

Karnataka)

9.

In the above referred decisions relied upon

by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it

has been held that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act would

5

not be attracted insofar where the petitioners therein

are termed as customers.

10.

In fact, Coordinate Bench of this Court after

examining and analyzing Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the ITP

Act, 1956 has held that prosecution had failed to make

out case against the accused persons therein for the

offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the ITP

Act.

11.

A bare reading of the Sections 3, 4 and 5 of

the ITP Act would clearly indicate that they are in no

way attracted insofar as providing any punishment to

the customers who were present at the venue where

alleged brothel was being run. In the absence of any

penal provisions, customers though are in a way

contributing to encourag