- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26059 WP No. 20542 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 20542 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SUDHARSHAN S., S/O SUMITHRE HEGDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT BRAHMAGIRI, UDUPI, KARNATAKA – 576 103 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIKETH K. V., FOR SRI. SACHIN B. S., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, URVA POLICE STATION MANGALORE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. POLICE OFFICE URWA POLICE STATION MANGALORE, D.K. – 575 006 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGESHWARAPPA K., HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO. 55/2025 DATED 19.06.2025 AND COMPLAINT DATED 19.06.2025 REGISTERED BY THE URVA POLICE STATION MANGALORE PENDING ON THE FILE OF III JMFC MANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26059 WP No. 20542 of 2025 3(1), 4, AND 5 OF THE IMMORAL TRAFFIC PREVENTION ACT, 1956 AND ALL THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs: “a) Quash the First Information Report and Complaint in Crime No.55/2025 dated 19.06.2025 and complaint dated 19.06.2025, registered by the Urva Police Station Mangalore pending on the file of III JMFC Mangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and all the subsequent proceedings initiated against the petitioner as per Annexure-A and B. b) Pass such other writ or directions or orders, as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 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 the respondent – Police Authorities instituted aforesaid proceedings - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26059 WP No. 20542 of 2025 against the petitioner registered FIR in Crime No.55/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 (sole accused) in the said proceedings. 4. In this context, it is relevant to note that the petitioner is merely the owner/ land lord of the building which was raided by the respondent and leased out the same in favour of Madhusudhan S/o Babu Bhandary, who had also obtained Trade license to run the Saloon Beauty Parlour under the name and style ‘Sixth Sence Salon and Hair Spa’. It is incumbent upon the respondent to implead/arraign the aforesaid Madhusudhan S/o Babu Bhandary as co-accused, which was not done in the instant case. In addition thereto, it would be relevant to refer the judgments of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Prabhuraj Vs. The State of Karnataka – Crl.P.No.415/2022 dated 08.03.2022 and V.V.Singara Velu Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr – Crl.P.No.9142/2023 dated 11.03.2024. 5. In Prabhuraj’s case supra, a co-ordinate bench of this Court has held as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26059 WP No. 20542 of 2025 Petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.4319/2020 registered for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (‘Act’ for short). 2. Heard Sri.Harish.N.R., learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.B.J.Rohith, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent. 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26059 WP No. 20542 of 2025 juncture 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 3 of the Act for consideration of the case of the petitioner, which reads as under: “(1) Any person who keeps or manages, or acts or assists in the keeping or management - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26059 WP No. 20542 of 2025 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 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26059 WP No. 20542 of 2025 (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 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: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26059 WP No. 20542 of 2025 ORDER (i) The 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.” 6. In V.V.Singara Velu’s case supra, a co-ordinate bench of this Court has held as under: “1. Petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.7 is before this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.55957/2018 arising out of Crime No.301/2016 registered by Indiranagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ITP Act' for short) and Section 370 of IPC, pending before the Court of X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26059 WP No. 20542 of 2025 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is only the owner of the premises in which allegedly the offences in question is said to have been committed. He submits that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that his tenant was indulged in carrying on the alleged illegal activities in the premises in question. He submits that petitioner can be prosecuted for the alleged offences only in case where the alleged offences are done with his consent or in the event of he having knowledge of the same. 4. Learned HCGP has opposed the petition. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is only the owner of the premises bearing No.421, II Floor, S.K.T Road, above Neelagiris Shop, Indiranagar, Bengaluru wherein, respondent No.2 was carrying on business in the name and style 'Aroma Spa and Saloon'. Petitioner has produced the Lease Agreement executed by him in favour of accused No.6. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner has leased the property in question to accused No.6 for the purpose of carrying on the illegal activities. Petitioner is residing separately in the address shown in the cause title and he is not residing near the premises in question. 6. Section 3(2)(b) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, provides that owners, lessor or landlord of any premises having knowledge of what is happening in the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26059 WP No. 20542 of 2025 premises can be brought within the ambit of the offence punishable under Section 3 of the ITP Act. In almost identical case, this Court in the case of Prabhuraj vs. State of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.415/2022 disposed of on 08.03.2022, has quashed the proceedings initiated against the owner of the premises for the offence punishable under the provisions of ITP Act. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that impugned proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Otherwise, the petitioner will be put to unnecessary harassment and the continuation of the proceedings will also amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Entire proceedings in C.C.No.55957/2018 arising out of Crime No.301/2016 registered by Indiranagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 370 of IPC, pending before the Court of X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru, is quashed as against the petitioner.” 7. In the instant case, in the absence of any material the petitioner had indulged in unlawful activities in the premises in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26059 WP No. 20542 of 2025 question, I am of the view that continuation of the impugned proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. 8. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in FIR in Crime No.55/2025 registered by the Urva Police Station, Mangalore, pending on the file of III JMFC Mangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 insofar as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed. iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent to proceed against anybody else in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 4 Sl No.: 34