Allowed

Sri Pradeep Kumar Shekar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2023CRL.P/3834/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal petition filed to quash the FIR and discharge the petitioners. The court held that the charge sheet material did not disclose the commission of trafficking offences against the petitioners, rendering the proceedings an abuse of process. Consequently, the previous discharge rejection order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; impugned order rejecting discharge application quashed; petitioners discharged of alleged offences; bail bonds cancelled.

Sri Pradeep Kumar Shekar Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41676 CRL.P No. 3834 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3834 OF 2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHEKAR S/O LATE SHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O C 505, SALARPURAI SERENITY 5TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 087.

¶7

SRI THILAK KANNAN S/O SEKAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O NO PAPAIAH BUILDING 1ST FLOOR, MARAKONDANAHALLI HULIMANE POST, JIGANI TALUK BENGALURU-560 706.

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE 560 001.

¶13

POLICE INSPECTOR, WOMEN AND NARCOTIC SQUAD CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, N T PET, BENGALURU-560 018.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND INFORMATION DATED 1.7.2015 AND REGISTERED AS FIR

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:41676 CRL.P No. 3834 of 2022

¶18

NO. 258/2015 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS ALONE WITH THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, WHEREIN THE SAID FIR IS REGISTERED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 370,420,342 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH72) AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioners have been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 420, 370, 120B of IPC.

¶22

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on receiving a credible information, a raid was conducted on house No.1221, 1st Floor, Chandra Layout, Bangalore on 1.7.2015, and it was uncovered that accused were running prostitution by keeping victims - CWs.9 to 15 in the above address by giving false assurance to the victims that, they would fetch them job at M/s.Rhythm Bar and Pub and had kept them in illegal custody.

¶23

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that except the material that the petitioners had sublet a portion of the property to CWs.7 and 8, there is no allegation, which satisfies the elements to constitute the commission of the offences alleged.

¶24

4. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents submits that, the charge sheet material discloses that, the petitioners had let out a portion of the premises to CWs.7 and 8 for carrying prostitution and veracity of the

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:41676 CRL.P No. 3834 of 2022

¶27

allegation can be considered at the time of trial and the same cannot be gone into in this petition.

¶28

5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

6. The petitioners, who are the accused No.2 and 3, had filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.PC to discharge them of the offences alleged. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the application on the ground that a mini trial cannot be conducted for considering the application for discharge. It is settled law that, this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.PC or the learned Sessions Judge in exercising his power under Section 239 of Cr.PC can discharge the petitioners of the offences if the charge sheet material does not disclose the commission of offences alleged against the petitioners.

¶30

7. The charge sheet material discloses that CW4 had let out the premises to the Petitioner of which a portion was sublet to CWs.7 and 8. The victim viz: CWs.10 to 14 in the charge sheet have categorically stated that they are the residents of various parts of the country, and the accused No.1 induced them to come to Bengaluru by promising them to secure a job. On the assurance given by the accused No.1, they came to Bengaluru and lodged in the premises of which the accused No.1 is the lessee, where they were kept in an illegal detention. The victim nor accused No.1 has stated that these petitioners were also involved in the trafficking. Section 370 of IPC reads thus:

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:41676 CRL.P No. 3834 of 2022

¶32

"Buying or disposing of any person as a slave.— Whoever imports, exports, removes, buys, sells or disposes of any person as a slave, or accepts, receives or detains against his will any person as a slave, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

¶33

8. A perusal of the charge sheet indicated that, except the allegation that, these petitioners, who are the lessees, have sublet a portion of the premises to CWs.7 and 8, in which, the victims were kept in illegal detention, there is no other allegation so as to attract the grounds enumerated in Section 370 of IPC. Therefore, in the absence of any material to substantiate that the petitioners were involved in trafficking, the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. The learned Sessions Judge, ignoring the fact that the charge sheet material does not disclose the commission of offence alleged against the petitioners, committed an error in dismissing the application by not exercising the power vested him under Section 227 of Cr.PC. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶36

ii) The impugned order dated 25.3.2022 passed in SC No.1133/2018 by the learned LXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 72) rejecting the application filed under

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41676 CRL.P No. 3834 of 2022

¶38

Section 227 of Cr.PC by the petitioners herein stands quashed and the application is allowed.

¶39

iii) The petitioners are discharged of the offences alleged against them.

¶40

iv) The bail bonds stand canceled.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

BKM

Sri Pradeep Kumar Shekar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Pradeep Kumar Shekar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri N R M Nagarajan Vs State of Karnataka

Noorul Baig Vs State by Inspector of Police

Sri K.Mohammad Thabsheer Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammad Ali, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Annapurna Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandrashekara M B Vs the State of Karnataka