RAGHAVENDRA @ RAGHU vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to

quash the FIR in Cr.No.149/2016 on the file of the III Addl.

C.M.M. Court, Bengaluru registered for the offence punishable

under section 370 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 4, 5 and

6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 in so far as the same

relates to the petitioner/accused No.8.

The facts of the case are as follows:

On 16.8.2016, one Smt.Ayesha - Police Inspector, Women

and Narcotic Squad, City Crime Branch, Bengaluru lodged a

complaint at Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station alleging that

some people were illegally running "body to body massage",

"happy ending" in No.148, 2nd Floor, Raghavendra Complex,

Dr.Chandrashekaran Road, Basaveshwara Circle, BEML 3rd

Stage, Rajarajeshwari nagar, Bengaluru. On the basis of the

credible information, the respondent -Police raided the massage

centre at 5.40 p.m. and arrested accused Nos.1 to 14 and two

victim girls and seized 13 mobiles and other materials.

On the basis of the above information, FIR came to

be registered against fourteen accused persons under sections 3,

4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (for short

"ITP Act, 1956") and section 370 of Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner has raised two fold contentions:-

(i) The case of the prosecution, even if accepted to be

true, does not satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged in

the FIR.

(ii) There are no allegations against the petitioner herein in

so far as the offence under section 370 of Indian Penal Code.

The allegations thereof relate only to accused Nos.1 to 3.

In the course of the argument, in addition to the

above grounds, it is argued, that the investigation into the

alleged incident and the preparation of the panchanama before

registration of the FIR is bad in law. In support of the argument,

learned counsel has referred to the orders passed by this Court

in Crl.P.No.7110/2011, Crl.P.No.7056/2014, Crl.P.No.

9682/2016, Crl.P.No.5808/2016, W.P.No.56504/2015 and also

the 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.) on these points.

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 had gone to the spot for

massage. The provisions of the ITP Act, 1956 invoked by the

first respondent do not get attracted to the facts alleged against

the petitioner. Section 3 of the ITP Act, 1956 deal with the

punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be

used as a brothel. Section 4 of the ITP Act, 1956 pertains to

punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution. Section 5

of the ITP Act, 1956 refers to the procuring, inducing or taking

(person) for the sake of prostitution. Section 6 of the IT(P) Act,

1956 deals about detaining a person in the premises where

prostitution is carried out. A person who visits brothel house

only as a customer is not covered by any of the above provisions

or any other provision of the ITP Act, 1956. In the decisions

referred above, in similar fact situation, the proceedings have

been quashed solely on that score. Apart from the above legal

defect, the registration of the FIR is also seen to have been done

after the commencement of the investigation by the second

respondent as it is an admitted fact that before registration of

the FIR, he rushed to the spot and arrested the culprits and drew

up the panchanama as recorded in the FIR. This procedure

adopted by the respondents renders the proceedings vitiated.

The allegations made against the petitioner and the

material collected against the petitioner do not show the

commission of any of the offences alleged against him in the FIR

and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is contrary to

the decision in the case of GIRISHCHANDRA VS. STATE BY

LOKAYUKTHA POLICE reported in ILR 2013 Karnataka 983,

and the law laid down in the case of LALITHA KUMARI vs.

GOVERNMENT OF U.P . reported in (2014)2 SCC 1. For both

these reasons, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The F.I.R. in

Cr.No.149/2016 on the file of the III Addl. C.M.M. Court,

Bengaluru is quashed.