- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3471 CRL.P No. 9972 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9972 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI. C. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, S/O LATE M.B. CHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/A KUMBARAPETE, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. POOJITH PRASAD D., ADVOCATE AND SRI.SHREERAM T NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY MALUR POLICE, KOLAR. REPRESENTED BY THE S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. KUMARI G ANUSHA, PROBATIONARY DY. S.P., I/C CIRCLE INSPECTOR, MALUR CIRCLE, MALUR, KOLAR - 536 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C.. PRAYING TO 1) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE DATED 09.06.2020 AS Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3471 CRL.P No. 9972 of 2023 AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.270/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(2A) OF THE IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT 1956 BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MALUR AS PER ANNEXURE - C AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner – accused No.3 seeks the following reliefs: (i) Set aside the order of cognizance dated 09.06.2020 as against the petitioner in C.C.No.270/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(2A) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 by the II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC at Malur as per Annexure-C. (ii) Quash the Final Report as against the petitioner filed by the respondent Police in C.C.No.270/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(2A) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 by the II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC at Malur as per Annexure-D. (iii) Quash the FIR in Crime No.158/2019 as against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(2A) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 filed by the respondent No.1 police as per Annexure-D. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3471 CRL.P No. 9972 of 2023 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 – Probationary Dy.S.P., filed a complaint on 29.06.2019, which is registered as an FIR in Crime No.158/2019 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 3(2A), 3 & 3(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the said Act of 1956’) after conducting a raid in the premises of 'Sharav Chandra Lodge', Chokkandahalli Gate, Hosakote Road, Malur Taluk. It is pertinent to note that in the original FIR, the petitioner was not arraigned as an accused, but only the Manager of the Lodge – Sanjay Gowda and one more person named Shashi were arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2, respectively. It is also relevant to state that in the original FIR in Crime No.158/2019, there are no allegations made as against the petitioner who is the owner of the property. 4. However, subsequently after investigation, the charge sheet was filed arraigning the petitioner as accused No.3 on the ground that certain monies were transferred to the account of the petitioner and cash was also given to him. However, the said - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3471 CRL.P No. 9972 of 2023 allegations made against the petitioner for the purpose of arraigning him as accused No.3 is not supported or substantiated by any legal or acceptable evidence, much less, oral or documentary evidence. It is also significant to note that the petitioner is merely the owner of the property and was neither involved in the alleged offences when the incident took place nor was he the Manager of the Lodge which was taken on lease from the petitioner, the owner / lessor of the property. The respondents have also not placed any material on record in order to indicate that the petitioner had leased out the property in question with the knowledge that the same was intended to be used as a brothel or that he was willfully a party to use such premises as a brothel nor have the respondents established that the petitioner was aware or had knowledge that the property would be used / was being used as a brothel so as to attract the offences punishable under Section 3(2) of the said Act of 1956; so also, in the absence of any material to establish that a report was published in a newspaper having circulation in the area, in which the petitioner resided to the effect that the premises was being used for prostitution, as a result of which search was made under the said Act of 1956 coupled with the undisputed fact that nothing was found during the search so as - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3471 CRL.P No. 9972 of 2023 to impute / attribute such knowledge to the petitioner, I am of the view that none of the ingredients constituting the aforesaid offences as against the petitioner – accused No.3 have been made out in the charge sheet and as such, the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserve to be quashed. 5. Under identical circumstances, in PRABHURAJ VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA1, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under: "7. The afore-narrated facts are not being in dispute are not reiterated. Search was conducted on the premises that the petitioner owned and rented out to accused No.1 on 25.01.2020 and case is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the said Act. It is germane to notice Section 3 of the Act for consideration of the case of the petitioner, which reads as under: “3. Punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel.—(1) Any person who keeps or manages, or acts or assists in the keeping or management of, a brothel, shall be punishable on first conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. (2) Any person who— 1 LAWS (KAR) 2022-3-112 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3471 CRL.P No. 9972 of 2023 (a) being the tenant, lessee, occupier or person in charge of any premises, uses, or knowingly allows any other person to use, such premises or any part thereof as a brothel, or (b) being the owner, lessor or landlord of any premises or the agent of such owner, lessor or landlord, lets the same or any part thereof with the knowledge that the same or any part thereof is intended to be used as a brothel, or is wilfully a party to the use of such premises or any part thereof as a brothel, shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine. [(2-A) For the purposes of sub-section (2), it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of that sub-section, is knowingly allowing the premises or any part thereof to be used as a brothel or, as the case may be, has knowledge that the premises or any part thereof are being used as a brothel, if,— (a) a report is published in a newspaper having circulation in the area in which such person resides to the effect that the premises or any part thereof have been found to be used for prostitution as a result of a search made under this Act; or (b) a copy of the list of all things found during the search referred to in clause (a) is given to such person]. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, on conviction of any person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of any offence under that sub- section in respect of any premises or any part thereof, any lease or agreement under which such - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3471 CRL.P No. 9972 of 2023 premises have been leased out or are held or occupied at the time of the commission of the offence, shall become void and inoperative with effect from the date of the said conviction.” (Emphasis supplied) Section 3(2)(b) of the Act directs that the owner, lessor or landlord of any premises having knowledge of what is happening in the premises, would be brought within the ambit of the offences punishable under Section 3 of the Act. Pursuant to the said search, a notice is issued to the petitioner on 29.01.2020 alleging the aforesaid offences against the petitioner, to which, the petitioner gives his reply clearly narrating that he is not aware of what is happening in the premises that he had rented it out and stayed far away. The police also while filing the charge sheet indicates the same. 8. In the light of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act and the police themselves acknowledging that petitioner was not aware as to what was happening in the premises, permitting further proceedings to continue against the petitioner would degenerate into harassment and become an abuse of the process of law." 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in the light of the judgment in the case of PRABHURAJ (SUPRA), I am of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings insofar as the petitioner- accused No.3 is concerned, deserves to be quashed. 7. In the result, I pass the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3471 CRL.P No. 9972 of 2023 Order i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.270/2020 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Malur, insofar as the petitioner-accused No.3 is concerned, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE RD/SRL