SANAULLA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent-police have lodged a charge sheet against the petitioner herein and another person for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 [for short, ITP Act] read with Section 370, IPC, in CC No. 25007 of 2016 and after committal of the case, the same has been registered in SC No. 1042 of 2017, on the file of XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

(2.) The charge sheet averments disclose that on 10-3-2016, after receiving credible information, the first respondent-police had been to Ashwathanagar, Bengaluru and raided house No 3, 1st Main, I Block therein and found that the petitioner and a lady were indulged in sexual activity with each other. The police have collected materials and seized articles and thereafter filed the charge sheet.

(3.) As could be seen from the allegations made, the petitioner herein is a "customer" and except that nothing has been alleged against him. In this context, it is worth to mention here that none of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein is attributed insofar as a "customer" is concerned. This court, following the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Goenka Sajan Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Public Prosecutor,. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 2015 3 Crimes(HC) 281 (AP)], had occasion to deal with such aspects in various decisions, viz.,