- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16063 CRL.P No. 7456 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7456 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI. NARAYANA S/O LATE SHEENA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 106, NELAPADY RESIDENCY, NEAR CAPITHANIO SCHOOL, KANKANADY, MANGALORE, D.K. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BARKE POLICE STATION D.K. MANGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU - 01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE III J.M.F.C. COURT, MANGALURU DISTRICT, DATED 25.01.2017 IN CR.NO.08/2017 IN C.C. NO.3260/2017, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1), 4, 5, 8 OF THE IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16063 CRL.P No. 7456 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched by the respondent against him in C.C No.3260/2017 (arising out of Crime No.8/2017) for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 4, 5, 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, then pending on the file of JMFC- III Court, Mangaluru, and presently pending before the JMFC (VI Court), Mangaluru. 2. The respondent on receiving credible information regarding immoral traffic, raided Olive Leaf Ayurvedic Therapy Centre (henceforth referred to as 'the Massage Centre'), situate at Bejai Church Road, Mangaluru, on 25.01.2017 at 03.45 p.m. The Manager of the Massage Centre was apprehended and it came to the knowledge of the raiding team that one Mr. Praveen D’Souza and Mr. George K were also involved in the said immoral trafficking of women and they were taken into custody. The petitioner herein was alleged to be the person who was running the brothel. Based on the material procured at the time of raid, the respondent registered Crime No.8/2017 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16063 CRL.P No. 7456 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 4, 5, 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, 'the ITP Act, 1956'). After drawing relevant mahazars, a charge sheet was filed against the accused Nos.1 to 5 including the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 4, 5, 8 of the ITP Act, 1956. The Trial Court in terms of the order dated 04.10.2017, took cognizance of the said offences and issued summons to accused Nos.1 to 3 and non-bailable warrant to accused No.4/petitioner herein and accused No.5 returnable by the date mentioned therein. 3. The petitioner has sought to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.3260/2017 in this petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the Massage Centre. He contends that one Mr. Maxin K. Kurian is the license holder of the Massage Centre and therefore, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against as he was not present at the time of raid and was not the person responsible for running the Massage Centre. He, therefore, contends that the impugned prosecution of the petitioner is liable to be quashed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16063 CRL.P No. 7456 of 2018 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that CW.4 was one of the women in the Massage Centre and she in her statement, stated that it is the petitioner / accused No.4 and accused No.3 who introduced her to accused Nos.1 and 2 and they induced her into prostitution. He, therefore, submits that there is corroborative material at this stage to show the involvement of the petitioner in the offence and hence, this Court may not exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to quash the proceedings. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. 7. It may be that the petitioner was not present at the time of the respondent raiding the Massage Centre. However, it is evident from the statement of CW.4 that it is the petitioner / accused No.4 and accused No.3 who introduced her to accused Nos.1 and 2 and they induced her into prostitution. Section 5 of the ITP Act, 1956 which deals with inducement of a woman into prostitution reads as follows: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16063 CRL.P No. 7456 of 2018 "5. Procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution.- (1) Any person who- (a) procures or attempts to procure a person, whether with or without his consent, for the purpose of prostitution; or (b) induces a person to go from any place, with the intent that he may for the purpose of prostitution become the inmate of, or frequent, a brothel; or (c) takes or attempts to take a person, or causes a person to be taken, from one place to another with a view to his carrying on, or being brought up to carry on prostitution; or (d) causes or induces a person to carry on prostitution, shall be punishable on conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than three years and not more than seven years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and if any offence under this sub-section is committed against the will of any person, the punishment of imprisonment for a term of seven years shall extend to imprisonment for a term of fourteen years: Provided that if the person in respect of whom an offence committed under this sub-section,- (i) is a child, the punishment provided under this sub-section shall extend to rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years but may extend to life; and (ii) is a minor, the punishment provided under this sub-section shall extend to rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years and not more than fourteen years;] 5[***] - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16063 CRL.P No. 7456 of 2018 (3) An offence under this section shall be triable- (a) in the place from which a person is procured, induced to go, taken or caused to be taken or from which an attempt to procure or take such person is made; or (b) in the place to which he may have gone as a result of the inducement or to which he is taken or caused to be taken or an attempt to take him is made." Therefore, there is material on record to show that the petitioner was one of the persons who had induced CW.4 into prostitution and hence, the cognizance taken by the Trial Court against the petitioner for an offence under Section 5 of the ITP Act, 1956 is justified. Hence, the Petition lacks merit and is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial in C.C No.3260/2017, which shall not exceed one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA