- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6229 CRL.P No. 103828 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103828 OF 2024 BETWEEN: NAGARAJ S/O. HANUMANTAPPA BILGAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: SHIVANAGAR, GANGAVATHI – 583 229, DIST: KOPPAL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C. R. HIREMATH & SMT. SUNITA C. HIREMATH, ADVOCATES) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH KARTAGI PSI REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN KARTAGI P.S. CRIME NO.297/2024 DATED 26.11.2024 PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, GANGAVATI KOPPAL DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1), 3(2A), 4 AND 5 OF THE IMMORAL TRAFFIC PREVENTION ACT, 1956, INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED THE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6229 CRL.P No. 103828 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’, for short) praying to quash the complaint and the FIR in Crime No.297/2024 of Karatagi Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 3(2A), 4 and 5 of the immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short]. 2. The case as narrated in the complaint is that, on 26.11.2024 at about 6.00 pm, the Police Inspector of Karatagi Police Station, on receipt of information regarding running a brothel business in the lodge of the petitioner, which was intimated to the Dy.SP and permission has been granted for raid, the police after completing all the formalities, raided the lodge of the petitioner at about 6.30pm. They went to Room No.105 on the first floor and it was locked from inside and they knocked the door and the door was opened by one person who was inside the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6229 CRL.P No. 103828 of 2024 room. They entered into the room and found a woman sitting on the bed. The said woman was brought by one Ravi and owner of the lodge for the purpose of prostitution. The said lady and two other men have been caught. The Police have also recovered cash of Rs.600/- and one empty condom packed under mahazar. The Police did not get any person relating to the lodge. The Police registered a complaint on 26.11.2024 in Crime No.297/2024 for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner, who was shown as accused No.2 in the FIR as owner of Danush residency lodge, has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the FIR and the complaint. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent- State. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is the owner of the said lodge and he has let out the same under an agreement dated 07.06.2024 to one Ashok Kumar S/o. Sulageppa and he is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6229 CRL.P No. 103828 of 2024 no way concerned to the business or running the said Hotel. He further submits that the said rent agreement is prepared six [6] months prior to the date of alleged incident. He further submits that the said rent agreement is for a period of five [5] years from 07.06.2024 to 06.05.2028. He further submits that as the lodging is let out by the petitioner, he is not involved in the management of lodging and on that point, he placed reliance on the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Jayashree H. Kankanwadi Vs. State of Karnataka and another passed in Crl.P. No.4300/2022 disposed of on 29.06.2022. With this, he prayed to allow the petition. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent- State would contend that there is a presumption under Section 3(2A) of the Act. He further submits that after the investigation, Police have filed chargesheet. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6229 CRL.P No. 103828 of 2024 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent-State, this Court has perused the FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. 7. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner is the owner of the Hotel Danush Residency situated at first floor. The rent agreement dated 07.06.2024 produced along with the petition indicates that the petitioner has let out the said Hotel Danush Residency to one Ashok Kumar S/o. Sulageppa for a period of five [5] years. The rent agreement indicates that the petitioner is not running the Hotel by name Danush Residency. In a similar case, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Jayashree H.Kankanwadi (supra) has observed thus; “7. The issue whether the owner of a premises can be hauled into the proceedings notwithstanding the fact that the owner did not have any knowledge about what was happening in the premises need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter as this Court in Criminal petition No.415 of 2022 decided on 8th March, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6229 CRL.P No. 103828 of 2024 2022 (Prabhuraj v. State of Karnataka) while considering similar issue has held as follows:- "3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows: The petitioner is the owner of residential premises bearing No.16, Shivagiri Nilaya, Nagarabhavi, 6th cross, Coconut Garden, Bengaluru. Petitioner lets out the premises to accused No.1, pursuant to a rent agreement entered into between the parties on 11.12.2019. A search is conducted by the police on 25.01.2020 on the premises where the tenant-accused No.1 was residing and finds that the accused No.1 was running a brothel. Pursuant to the said search, a crime is registered against the petitioner and others for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act and under Section 370 of the IPC. The petitioner being the owner of the premises was issued a notice on 29.01.2020 to which the petitioner replies on 31.1.2020, explaining the circumstances of him being not aware of what activities happening in the house which he has rented it out. The police, after investigation, have filed charge sheet in the matter against the petitioner as well for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act. It is at that juncture - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6229 CRL.P No. 103828 of 2024 the petitioner knocks the doors of this Court in the subject writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the said Act, the petitioner cannot be hauled into criminal proceedings, as he was owner of the premises and the activities happening in the premises which was rented by him to accused No.1 was not within his knowledge as he was staying far away from such premises. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner being the owner is definitely to be brought into trial in terms of Section 3 of the Act and would seek to justify the action of the police in filing the charge sheet even against the petitioner. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 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 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6229 CRL.P No. 103828 of 2024 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— (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 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6229 CRL.P No. 103828 of 2024 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. 23[(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 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6229 CRL.P No. 103828 of 2024 offence under that sub-section in respect of any premises or any part thereof, any lease or agreement under which such 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. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6229 CRL.P No. 103828 of 2024 ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.4319/2020 pending on the file of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is quashed qua the petitioner. iii. It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against any other accused pending before any other fora." The co-ordinate Bench also considered the presumption under Section 3(2A) of the Act at para No.7 noted (supra). Considering the above, the proceedings against the petitioner are abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the following; ORDER i) The petition is allowed. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6229 CRL.P No. 103828 of 2024 ii) The FIR and complaint of Karatagi Police Station in Crime No.297/2024 registered for offence punishable under Sections 3(1), 3(2A), 4 and 5 of the Act pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC (Junior Division) and JMFC Court, Gangavati insofar as the petitioner- accused No.2 is concerned are quashed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE kmv up to para 2 PJ- CT-ASC