- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16417 CRL.P No. 2735 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2735 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: SMT. PRAMILA W/O N. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A NO.2-72, JAYADAVALA NOORAL BETTU VILLAGE NOORAL BETTU POST, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT. - 574 107. …PETITIONER (BY SRI BALAKRISHNA M.R, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KARKALA TOWN POLICE STATION KARKALA, UDUPI DIST., 574 104 REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. JAYASHREE E.S. MANE FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCCUPATION. POLICE INSPECTOR KAUPU CIRCLE, UDUPI DIST.,- 574 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R, HCGP FOR R-1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1876/2025 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 3,4,5,6 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC PREVENTION ACT 1956 AND U/S 3(5) AND 144(2) OF BNS 2023 NOW PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C COURT KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT WHICH IS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1/KARKAL TOWN P.S. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16417 CRL.P No. 2735 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner/accused No.3, is before this Court calling in question proceedings in CC No.1876/2025 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala, Udupi District, arising out of Crime No.153/2024 registered by Karkala Town Police Station, Udupi, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and Section 144(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 2. Heard Sri. Balalkrishna M. R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Sowmya R, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 08.09.2024, a search conducted in a particular premises led to registration of the crime for the aforesaid offences. Petitioner is drawn into the web of crime for the offences as aforequoted as accused No.3, being the owner of the property. Petitioner is said to be - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16417 CRL.P No. 2735 of 2026 working as a Teacher in a Government Primary School for the last 36 years. She also owns a property which is said to have been occupied by accused Nos.1 and 2. The occupation of the property is ostensibly on a rent that is to be received by petitioner/accused No.3 but there is no rental agreement. 4. Be that as it may, the offences alleged against this petitioner in particular would become punishable only if the petitioner as owner of the property has knowledge of what is happening in the said premises. Knowledge is not what is attributed to the petitioner even by the prosecution. If the owner of the property working elsewhere staying elsewhere has rented out the property and is not aware that prostitution is being run in the said house by accused Nos.1 and 2, petitioner cannot be hauled into the proceedings for punishment under the Act or under Section 144(2) of the BNS, 2023. 5. In identical circumstances, this Court in Crl.P.No.415/2022 disposed off on 08.03.2022, has passed the following order:- "ORDER Petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.4319/2020 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16417 CRL.P No. 2735 of 2026 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16417 CRL.P No. 2735 of 2026 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 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16417 CRL.P No. 2735 of 2026 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— (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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16417 CRL.P No. 2735 of 2026 (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. 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16417 CRL.P No. 2735 of 2026 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 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16417 CRL.P No. 2735 of 2026 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: 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 for a." - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16417 CRL.P No. 2735 of 2026 6. In the light of the issue standing completely answered by a judgment rendered by this Court in which this Court has clearly held that unless the owner has knowledge of what is happening in the premises, the owner of a particular property cannot be drawn into the web of proceedings. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed only against accused No.3, the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:- ORDER (i) The criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.1876/2025 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala, Udupi District, is quashed, qua the petitioner/accused No.3. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 170