Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1516 (KAR)

Manuja D/o Karibasappa v. State of Karnataka

2017-11-13

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2017
ORDER : 1. A Suo-moto complaint has been registered by one Ravi Prasad, ASI, Yeshwanthpura Police Station. The FIR was filed and a case has been registered against the petitioner and others in Crime No. 440/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (for short ‘ITP Act’) and Section 370 of IPC. 2. The records disclose that the Sub-Inspector of Police has investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet for the above said offences on the allegations that the accused persons have colluded with each other and taken a house bearing No. 8/4 of Platinum City, ‘G’ Block, at Tumkuru Road and are running a brothel house therein for the purpose of wrongful gain. 3. The learned counsel strenuously attack the said charge sheet on the basis of want of power and jurisdiction of the Sub-Inspector of Police in registering the case and investigating the same, and submitting a charge-sheet before the Court and the Court taking cognizance on such matter. 4. In this regard, it is worth to refer a decision of this Court on the same point reported in Shankare Gowda @ Shankara Vs. State by Madanayakanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru and Another, ILR 2016 Kar. 3067 wherein this Court has considered the jurisdiction of the Sub-Inspector of Police in lodging the complaint as per Section 13 of the ITP Act and also the Court has discussed as to who can be appointed as the Special Officer for the purpose of investigating the case under the said Act. The guidelines laid in the said Ruling reads thus: “HELD: Police Sub-Inspector cannot be a Special Officer, as per the mandate of Section 13 of the Act, it can only be the Inspector of Police or an Officer of above the rank of Police Inspector who can be appointed as Special Officer. When a procedure is prescribed under law to do a thing in a particular manner, it should be carried out in that manner only. The Police Sub-Inspector, who arrested the accused, submitted proper form to the Court, recorded the statements of the witnesses is not shown to be qualifying as “subordinate Police Officer” notified by the State Government to assist the Special Officer Hence, the investigation was without jurisdiction, which goes to the root of the matter. The Police Sub-Inspector, who arrested the accused, submitted proper form to the Court, recorded the statements of the witnesses is not shown to be qualifying as “subordinate Police Officer” notified by the State Government to assist the Special Officer Hence, the investigation was without jurisdiction, which goes to the root of the matter. On that count itself, the criminal prosecution is liable to be quashed without touching other contention regarding defective investigation. FURTHER HEAD: The registration and investigation of the offences under the Act without authority under Section 13 of the Act is without jurisdiction and a wasteful exercise and abuse of public time and energy; villainy smiles while law fails. Illiteracy and poverty breeds evils of sexual exploitation of vulnerable sex, their abuse for commercial purpose in an organized manner. If a case instituted under the Act shall fail for ambiguity in the Government Order, it is nothing but mockery of democracy. It is high time that the State wake-sup and gives effect to the mandate of Section 13 of the Act by appointing specifically one Special Police Officer for a particular area and sensitize the Special Officers to so appointed, so that they strictly abide by the provisions of the Act in their official functioning to effectuate the scheme of the Act, (1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – (2) Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 – Sections 3 to 9 and 15 (3) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 366A and 372 Read with Section 34 – Discussed.” 5. In view of the above said decision, in this case also, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who has no authority to register the case and investigate the matter, nor even the Government can authorize him as a Special Officer, because he is below the rank of Police Sub-Inspector. In the above circumstances, the whole investigation is bad in law and cognizance taken on such charge sheet is also without jurisdiction. 6. In the above said circumstances, the entire proceedings is initiated by the Sub-Inspector of Police suffers from serious illegality. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed. Hence, the following order: ORDER: The petition is allowed. In the above circumstances, the whole investigation is bad in law and cognizance taken on such charge sheet is also without jurisdiction. 6. In the above said circumstances, the entire proceedings is initiated by the Sub-Inspector of Police suffers from serious illegality. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed. Hence, the following order: ORDER: The petition is allowed. The case registered in C.C. No. 104/2017 arising out of Crime No. 440/2016, pending on the file of the 24th Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act and Section 370 of IPC, is hereby quashed. 7. In view of disposal of this case, the application - IA No. 1/2017 filed for stay, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said application stands disposed of.