1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8985/2018

BETWEEN:

SRI. TASLEEM

S/O C.M. MOHAMMED

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

R/A T NO 50

KALASHIPALYA MAIN ROAD

BANGALORE – 02.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. JAIRAJ G, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

PULAKESHINAGAR POLICE STATION

BENGALURU - 05.

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR OF HIGH COURT .

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482

CR.P.C

PRAYING

TO

QUASH

THE

ENTIRE

PROCEEDINGS

AGAINST

THE

PETITIONER

IN

C.C.NO.137/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I-

M.M.T.C., MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE FOR THE

OFFENCE P/U/S 3,4,5,6 OF I.T.P ACT.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR

ADMISSION

THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT

MADE

THE

FOLLOWING:

2

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings C.C.No.137/2014

pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic

Court-I, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of

the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short

‘ITP Act’), insofar as it relates to petitioner – accused

No.2.

2.

Facts in brief which has led to filing of

this petition are as follows:

On the basis of information received that

prostitution activities is being carried on in House

No.27, 6^th Cross, Huchins Road, Bengaluru on

05.10.2013, at about 7.30 p.m., Sri.Mohammad Rafi–

Police Inspector, Pulakeshinagar Police Station along

with decoy, panchas and staff members went to the

spot and arrested petitioner/accused and other

accused persons, who were customers and produced

3

them before the respondent – police along with the

panchanama. On the basis of said information, FIR

came to be registered against three accused persons

under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic

(Prevention) Act, 1956.

3.

It

is

contended

by

learned

counsel

appearing for petitioner that even if the case of

prosecution is accepted, it does not satisfy the

ingredients

of

offences

urged

in

FIR

against

petitioner.

4.

In the course of argument, in addition to

above grounds, it is also contended that investigation

into

the

alleged

incident

and

preparation

of

panchanama before registration of FIR is bad in law,

since it is carried out by a person not competent to

do so. In support of his arguments, learned counsel

has referred to the orders passed by this Court in

Cr.P.Nos.7110/2011,

7056/2014,

9682/2016,

5808/2016 and W.P.No.56504/2015 and also the

4

decision rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court

in the case of GOENKA SAJAN KUMAR vs. STATE

OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in 2015 (3)

CRIMES 281 (A.P.).

5.

Per contra, Sri. S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP

appearing for respondent/State would support the

prosecution initiated against petitioner.

6.

Having

heard

the

learned

counsel

appearing for petitioner and on perusal of case

papers and orders relied upon by the learned counsel

appearing for petitioner, it would disclose that main

ground on which petitioner has been arraigned as

accused in the above crime is that he was present at

the scene of incident during the raid. The contents of

complaint would also disclose that petitioner was

alleged

to

be

a

customer.

Under

similar

circumstances, this Court in Crl.P.No.1959/2017

had allowed the petition and had quashed the

proceedings

insofar

as

accused

therein

was

5

concerned on the ground that accused therein was a

customer. Finding recorded by the Coordinate Bench

in Crl.P.No.1959/2017 reads as under:

“6.

I have perused the FIR and

the orders relied on by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. The sole

ground on which the petitioner

herein is arrayed as the accused in

the above crime is that he was

present at the spot during the raid,

indicating that he was a customer

who h