Mr Irfan Khan @ Irfan vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3015 Kant

                           1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.10270 OF 2021

BETWEEN

MR. IRFAN KHAN @ IRFAN
S/O ISMAIL
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDENT OF HADIGERE VILLAGE
CHINTAMANI TALUK
CHAKKABALLAPUR-563 125.
                                          ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI JNANESH KUMAR.K , ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
                                        ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP )

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET NO.189/2020
FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.22655/2021, IN CR.NO.189/2020, PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE HON'BLE VII A.C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3,4,5, 7 OF IMMORAL
TRAFFIC PREVENTIONA ACT AND SECTION 370 OF IPC.

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                2


                          ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts

notice for respondent-State.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused

No.3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the

criminal proceedings against this petitioner in

C.C.No.22655/2021 pending on the file of VII Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru registered by

Amruthahalli Police Station for the offences punishable

under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic

Prevention Act, 1956 (for short 'ITP Act') and Section 370

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and Learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent-State.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on the

credible information, Amruthahalli Police raided the house

of accused No.1 at No.42, Venkategowda Layout, Hebbal

Kempapura, 3rd Cross, Bengaluru by sending CW.9 as

decoy where accused Nos.1 to 3 were present on the spot

and on enquiry, it was found that accused No.1 was

running brothel, accused No.2 was procuring the

customers and accused No.3-present petitioner is said to

be the customer who came for prostitution. After

registering the case, charge-sheet came to be filed and

now, the petitioner is before this Court by challenging the

charge-sheet.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

contended that the petitioner is only customer as per the

charge-sheet and there is no offence would attract against

this petitioner either Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the ITP Act

or Section 370 of IPC. Therefore, prayed for quashing the

same.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader objected the petition.

7. Having heard the arguments, perused the

records and on perusal of the charge-sheet, it clearly

reveals that accused No.1 is running brothel centre and

accused No.2 is said to be procuring the minor girls for

prostitution and this petitioner is only 'customer' who came

for prostitution, he was caught red handed when the raid

was conducted by the Police Officer. Section 3 of the ITP

Act provides for punishment for keeping a brothel or

allowing premises to be used as a brothel. Section 4 of the

Act provides for punishment for living on the earnings of

prostitution and Section 5 of the Act provides for

punishment for procuring, inducing or taking a person for

the sake of prostitution. This petitioner is only the

'customer' and in view of the provisions having been

attracted against the petitioner is not punishable under

those Sections. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

Crl.P.No.2330/2017 in the case of Prasannakumara Vs.

The State of Karnataka vide judgment dated 29.06.2020

has quashed the criminal proceedings in similar allegation

made against the customers. This Court has also quashed

the criminal proceedings in the similar circumstances.

Therefore, I am of the view that conduction of criminal

proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of

process of law. Hence, the criminal proceedings is liable to

be quashed.

8. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed.

9. The criminal proceedings against the

petitioner-accused No.3 in C.C.No.22655/2021 pending on

the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bengaluru is hereby quashed.

10. In view of disposal of the main petition,

pending I.A.No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration

and the same is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GBB