Landlord Can't Be Prosecuted Under Immoral Traffic Prevention Act If He's Unaware About Rented Premises Being Used As Brothel: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, on the ground that he was not aware that the premise he had given on rent, was being used for running a brothel. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Prabhuraj, stating,"In the light of Section 3(2)(b) of...
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, on the ground that he was not aware that the premise he had given on rent, was being used for running a brothel.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Prabhuraj, stating,
"In the light of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act (Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956) 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."
Case Background
The petitioner had let out his residential premises on rent to accused No.1, pursuant to a rent agreement entered into between the parties in December 2019.
When a search on the said premises was conducted by the police in January 2020, the tenant-accused No.1 was found to be running a brothel thereon. Pursuant to this, a crime was registered against the petitioner-landlord and others for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and under Section 370 of the IPC.
The petitioner being the owner of the premises was issued a notice, to which he replied explaining the circumstances of him being not aware of what activities were happening in the house which he had rented out.
The police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet in the matter against the petitioner, which prompted him to approach the High Court.
Arguments
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of the 1956 Act, the petitioner cannot be hauled into criminal proceedings merely because he was the owner of the premises when the activities happening inside the premises was not within his knowledge, as he was staying far away.
The Prosecution opposed the plea, stating that the petitioner being the owner is definitely to be brought into trial in terms of Section 3 of the Act.
Court findings
At the outset, the Court noted that as per Section 3(2)(b) of the Act, 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 the Act."
Thus, the Court said that the impugned proceedings cannot be allowed to continue since the Petitioner has clearly narrated that he was not aware of what is happening in the premises and that even the Police has indicated the same while filing the charge sheet.
Accordingly, the Court ordered, "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." It clarified 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 fora.
Case Title: PRABHURAJ v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.415 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 90
Date of Order: 08TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
Appearance: Advocate Harish N R for petitioner; Advocate B J Rohith for respondent