Karnataka High Court
Mirija S/O. Saiyadasab Naykodi vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15258
CRL.P No. 101909 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101909 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. MIRIJA S/O. SAIYADASAB NAYKODI,
AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESSMAN,
R/O. MANTUR ROAD, MUDHOL,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT - 587 313.
2. MAHAMMAD ISMAYIL
S/O. ABDULSATTAR KUDACHI,
AGE. 40, OCC. BUSINESSMAN,
R/O. MANTUR ROAD, MUDHOL,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587313
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL DHARWAD, THROUGH PSI,
NINGAPPA MUDHOL POLICE STATION,
PATTIHAL
Location: High DIST. BAGALKOT - 587 313.
Court of Karnataka, ...RESPONDENT
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR RESPONDENT)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN SC
NO.5005/2023 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED
NOS.1 AND 2) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3
AND 5 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956 AND 370A(2)
OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI, INSOFAR AS
THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2) ARE CONCERNED IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15258
CRL.P No. 101909 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following prayer:
"THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN SC
NO.5005/2023 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED
NOS.1 AND 2) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3
AND 5 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956 AND 370A(2)
OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI, INSOFAR AS
THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2) ARE CONCERNED IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE."
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the issue in the lis the legal grounds set out in the
subject petition are all answered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the
case HANAMANTH S/O BHARAT SIRSAGAR AND OTHERS
vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA in Criminal Petition
No.201645 of 2023 disposed on 10.04.2024. The Co-ordinate
Bench is held as follows:
"The petitioners, who are accused No.1, 2 and 3 in
Crime No.85/2023 of Kamalanagar Police Station, Bidar
for the offences punishable under Section 3, 4, 5, 6 of
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 are before this
Court seeking quashing of the proceedings.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the
complainant, who is a Circle Inspector of Police of
Kamalanagar Circle had received a credible information
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15258
HC-KAR
that prostitution is being carried out in Ajanta Lodge at
Kamalanagar and therefore after obtaining prior
permission of Dy.S.P, he raided the said lodge along with
the panchas and his staff. It was found that prostitution
was practiced in the said lodge and therefore, the spot
mahazar was conducted in the presence of one Santosh
and Govind. Along with the accused Nos.1 and 2 and the
seized articles, he returned to the police station and
lodged his complaint, which came to be registered by the
SHO i.e., PSI of Kamalanagar Police Station for the above
said offences at about 4.00 p.m. on 05.09.2023.
3. Now the learned counsel for the petitioners, who
are accused Nos.1 to 3 submit that the PSI of
Kamalanagar Police Station or of Circle Inspector of Police
who conducted the raid were not having any authority
since there is no such designation of these police officers
as a Special Police Officer as required under Section 13 of
the ITP Act. It is contended that, the mandatory
provisions of Section 15 of the ITP Act are also not
followed by the investigating officer and therefore, on
both these grounds to the proceedings are not sustainable
in law.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader would submit that there is no such notification by
the Government which empowers the Circle Inspector of
Police to be a Special Police Officer as required under
Section 2(i) and 13 of the ITP Act. However, she submits
that the irregularity in registering the case cannot be a
ground to quash the entire proceedings. It is submitted
that the reason as to why the investigating officer could
not take women as required under Section 15 of the Act
can only be ascertained at the time of the trial and
therefore it cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has
placed reliance on the case of Dharmanna V/s The
State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition
No.200915/2023, dated 18.07.2023, Shri. Rajath V/s
State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.101975/2021
dated 16.02.2022, Mr.Praveen Kumar M.S. V/s State
of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.1398/2017 dated
28.03.2022, to contend that the provisions of Section
15(2) of the ITP Act are mandatory in nature and that in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15258
HC-KAR
the absence of any notification to show that the
investigating officer was a special police officer within the
definition of 2(i) of the ITP Act, the investigating is not
sustainable in law.
6. In the case of Dharmanna V/s The State of
Karnataka, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in para 6
and 7 as stated as below:
"6. Section 13 of the Act specifies that,
there shall be for each area to be specified by
the State Government in this behalf a special
police officer appointed by or on behalf of that
Government, for dealing with offences under
this Act in that area.
7. Clause (2) of Section 13 of the Act
specifies that, the special police officer shall not
be below the rank of an Inspector of Police. In
the instant case, though the raid was conducted
by the Police Inspector, however, he has not
been designated as special police officer to deal
with the offence under this Act in that area by
the State Government. Hence, conducting of the
raid, and registration of the FIR by the Police
Inspector is one without authority of law."
7. In the case of Shri.Rajath V/s The State of
Karnataka, after going through the provisions of Section
14, Section 2 and various other provisions of law, in para
11 it was observed as below:
"11. The present proceeding is instituted
pursuant to a complaint registered by the
Assistant Sub-Inspector to the Police Inspector
of Gokul Road Police Station. It is an undisputed
fact that the informant/complainant is not the
Special Police Officer in terms of the
aforequoted statute. Thus, the very proceeding
that is initiated against the petitioner is based
upon a complaint, complainant of which had no
jurisdiction. Therefore, the proceedings would
stand vitiated on account of it being in violation
of the afore-quoted mandate of the statute."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15258
HC-KAR
8. In the case of Mr.Praveen Kumar M.S. V/s
State of Karnataka, this Court has observed that the
provisions of Section 15(2) of the ITP Act are mandatory
in nature and the reading party shall accompanied by a
women and another pancha shall be a person from the
locality. In para 7 and 8 of the order, it was observed as
below:
"7. Section 15(2) of the ITP Act reveals that
atleast one of the witness shall be a respectable
women from the said locality at the time of
search seizure, but, that was not done by the
police officer. Thereby, there is a gross violation
of Section 15(2) of the ITP Act. That apart, the
learned counsel produces notification of the
Government of Karnataka dated 02.08.2008
wherein it states that who will be the officer for
investigation under the ITP Act, Section 13 of the
Act states that where not below the rank of
Inspector of police is permitted to investigate the
matter.
8. Here in this case, the Police Inspector who
registered the complaint and handed over the
same to the Sub-Inspector of Police for
investigating is also violation of provisions of
Section 13 of the Act which is also abuse of the
process of the law. Such being the case, allowing
the police to investigate the matter is nothing
but the abuse of the process of the law. Hence,
the FIR is liable to be quashed."
9. It is evident that the provisions of Section 2(i) of
ITP Act lay down that only a special police officer is
empowered to investigate the matter. It appears that
there is no such notification issued by the Government
wherein a Police Officer of the rank of the Circle Inspector
of Police/Police Inspector or Dy.S.P. of the Police Stations
are the Special Police Officers within the meaning of 2(i)
of the ITP Act. In the absence of any such powers
conferred upon the Police Officers, it cannot be said that
the Police Inspectors of all the Police Stations are the
Special Police Officers within the meaning of Section 2(i)
of the ITP Act.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15258
HC-KAR
10. So also, it is evident that in the case on hand the
investigating officer had not taken a woman along with
the raiding party for the purpose of raid. Section 12(2) of
the Act is mandatory in nature. There cannot be any
doubt that in the absence of any averments in the
mahazar that no woman was available or no person of the
locality was available, such a raid cannot be permitted to
the basis of any prosecution. Hence, it is evident that
continuation of the present proceedings would be nothing
but abuse of process of law. Therefore, the petition
deserves to be allowed.
11. It is seen from the record that many number of
cases alleging the offences under the provisions of ITP Act
are not properly investigated and certain mandatory
provisions are not followed by the investigating officers.
Therefore, it would be proper to direct the learned High
Court Government Pleader to bring the same to the notice
of Prl. Secretary, Home Department and to take
necessary corrective measures in the matter. Hence, the
following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
The proceedings in Crime No.85/2023 of
Kamalanagar Police Station, Bidar District is hereby
quashed.
The learned High Court Government Pleader is
directed to bring the observations of this Court to the
notice of the Prl Secretary, Home department for
necessary corrective measures."
3. Learned AGA is not in a position to dispute the
position of law as is laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court.
4. In that light the petition deserves to succeed, as the
grounds set out in the subject petition are all identical to what is
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15258
HC-KAR
rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid judgment.
Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition stands allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in S.C.No.5005/2023 on
the file of I Addl.District and Sessions Judge,
Bagalkot (sitting at Jamkhandi), stand
quashed.
(iii) The learned High Court Government Pleader
is directed to bring the observations of this
Court to the notice of the Prl Secretary,
Home department for necessary corrective
measures."
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
RHR/CT-ASC
