IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

WRIT PETITION NO.103728/2017(GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

RAMESH S/O. VISHNU SHETTY

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,

R/O: CHITTARGI, TQ: KUMTA,

DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

PETITIONER

(BY SRI. LINGESH V. KATTIMANI FOR

SRI. S.G. KADADAKATTI, ADV.)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

GOKUL ROAD POLICE,

BY ITS ADDL.SPP,

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W. SECTION 482

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

NO.2133/2014, PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC-1^ST COURT,

HUBBALLI, VIDE ANNEXURE-C.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

– B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2

ORDER

This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India R/w. Section 482 Cr.P.C. to

issue writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings

initiated against the petitioner/accused No.2 for the

alleged offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of

the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter

referred

to

as

‘the

ITP

Act’,

for

short)

in

C.C.No.2133/2014 pending on the file of the JMFC I

Court, Hubballi.

2.

The facts leading to this petition are that, on

receiving

credible

information,

the

police

have

conducted raid along with panchas on 14.02.2014 at

the spot, which is a residential house of one Mr. M. K.

Baddi. When the police officials entered the premises,

they have found two persons in the bed room and on

further enquiry, the lady found in the room informed

3

that she had come to the said residence at the

instruction of the accused No.1. It is found that

accused No.1 being the lease holder of the premises was

using the said residential house as brothel by keeping a

lady in the said house by name Sanjana W/o.Ranga of

Ballari and soliciting the business from customers

namely accused Nos. 2 and 3, to induce them to involve

in immoral activities. On registering the case and

completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed,

which is numbered as C.C.No.2133/2014.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused

the records.

4.

The main contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioner is that the entire case of the

prosecution even if it is accepted to be true, does not

satisfy ingredients of offences alleged in the FIR. Even

according to complaint averments, admittedly, the

4

accused Nos.2 and 3 were only customers. There are no

allegations that these two accused were soliciting

business or involved in any other activities to facilitate

accused No.1 to run the brothel. Thus, the initiation of

proceedings is bad in law. In support of the said

contention the counsel has relied upon the decision

reported in LAWS(KAR) 2017 3 11 in the case of

Abhijit Kallianpur, V/s. State of Karnataka.

5.

On perusal of the FIR and other prosecution

records relied on by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the only ground on which the petitioner

herein is arrayed as accused No.2 is that he was found

in the residential premises at the time of raid and he is

said to be the customer. Therefore, the provisions of the

ITP Act invoked by the respondent are not attracted to

the facts alleged against the petitioner.

6.

Section 3 of ITP Act deals with punishment

for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as

5

a brothel. Section 4 of the ITP Act pertains to

punishment for living on the earning of prostitution.

Section 5 of the ITP Act refers to the procuring, inducing

or taking (person) for the sake of prostitution. Section 6

of the ITP Act deals with detaining a person in the

premises where prostitution is carried out and fin