Date of Judgement:
04th April 2022
Coram/judge:
The Hon’ble Justice Mr. M. Nagaprasanna
Parties to the Case:
Petitioner- Babu S.
Respondents-State by Kengeri Police Station.
Legal Provisions
- Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- lays down inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. The High Court have jurisdiction to quash FIRs.
- Section 370 of Indian Penal Code, 1860- lays down punishment for Buying or disposing of any person as a slave.
- Section 3 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956- lays down punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel
- Section 4 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act 1956- lays down punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution
- Section 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956- lays down the penal provision for procuring, inducing or taking any person for the sake of prostitution.
- Section 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956- lays down the punishment for Detaining a person in premises where prostitution was being carried on.
Overview
- A complaint was registered on 23.09.2021 by the Police Sub Inspector of the appropriate police station (respondent).He had received credible information on the matter, the petitioner was a customer who was found at the time when the premises was searched on 23.09.2021.
- Result of the search was seizure of several materials. Subsequently, the offences punishable under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and the IPC were made out and proceedings were initiated.
- The petitioner had affirmed that he was a customer in the brothel when the search was conducted by the police.
Issue
Whether in light of the present circumstances, the petitioner was liable to be charged with the given provisions of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and Indian Penal Code, 1860?
Judgement Analysis
- The Court observed that The Honourable Court had formed a consistent view on the given matter in various cases adjudicated by it.
- It was held that a customer, in a brothel, could not be dragged into criminal proceedings under the provisions of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 or section 370 of IPC, 1860.
- The Court relied on the case of Barath S.P. v. State of Karnataka, disposed on 24.03.2022, wherein the Court adjudicated a similar matter.
- It was held that on a plain reading of provision under of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, under which the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, it would be observed that none of the provisions get attracted against a customer. He neither kept a brothel or allowed the premises to be used as brothel which would be punishable under Section 3 of the Act. He did not live on the earnings of the prostitution.
- He could not be alleged of inducing, procuring or taking a person for the purpose of prostitution. He did not detain a person in the premises where prostitution was carried on. The allegations against the petitioner were the ones punishable under the aforesaid provisions. Clearly, these were not applicable in the present case.
- Section 370 of the IPC laid down punishment for offences of buying or disposing any person as a slave. The incident was insufficient to link the petitioner to the said offences. Hence, the proceedings were declared unsustainable.
- Hence the criminal petition was allowed and the proceedings were quashed.
Conclusion
The Honourable High Court, in lieu of its powers under section 482 CrPC, quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner was accused underImmoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and IPC, 1860 but the Court was of the view that in light of previously decided cases, the offences were not maintainable against the petitioner and were liable to be set aside.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
