MR MAXIM K KURIAN vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58184
CRL.P No. 5994 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 272 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010246092019




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH


CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5994 OF 2019
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.272 OF 2020

IN CRL.P NO.5994/2019:

BETWEEN:

1. MR. MAXIM K. KURIAN,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O K.P. KURIAN,
RESIDING AT AALEEV LEEF
AYURVEDA TREATMENT AND YOGA CENTRE,
BEJAI CHURCH CROSS ROAD,
BEJAI, MANGALURU-575004.

PRESENTLY:
RESIDING AT XAVIER RESIDENCY,
WESTEND FLAT NO.203,
BONDEL, BONDEL POST,
MANGALURU,
DK DISTRICT-575008.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
BARKE POLICE STATION,
BARKE, MANGALURU,











Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58184
CRL.P No. 5994 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 272 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010246092019


DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-575001.

(NOTE: SINCE THE POLICE INSPECTOR OF BARKE
POLICE STATION IS THE COMPLAINANT HE IS NOT
ARRAYED AS RESPONDENT)

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.3260/2017, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (VI COURT), MANGALURU (ARISING
OUT OF CR.NO.8/2017 OF BARKE P.S, BARKE, MANGALURU)
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 3(1), 4, 5 AND 8 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC
(PREVENTION) ACT, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5
IS CONCERNED.

IN CRL.P NO.272/2020:

BETWEEN:

1. MAXIM,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
SON OF K.P. KURIAN,
RESIDING AT XAVIER RESIDENCY,
WESTEND FLAT NO.203,
BONDEL, BONDEL POST,
MANGALURU,
D.K. DISTRICT-575008.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58184
CRL.P No. 5994 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 272 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010246092019


AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANGALURU WOMENS POLICE STATION,
MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANGALURU EAST POLICE STATION,
MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT.

BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MOHAMMED AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP)


THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.2311/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (VI COURT) MANGALURU (ARISING
OUT OF CR.NO.73/2017 OF MANGALURU EAST P.S.)
MANGALURU, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 4 AND 5 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC
(PREVENTION) ACT AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE
SAID CASE IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IS
CONCERNED.

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58184
CRL.P No. 5994 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 272 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010246092019


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondents/State.
2. Crl.P.No.5994/2019 is filed praying this Court to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3260/2017, pending on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (VI Court),
Mangaluru, arising out of Crime No.8/2017 of Barke Police
Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1), 4, 5
and 8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (‘ITP Act’ for
short) insofar as accused No.5 is concerned.
3. Crl.P.No.272/2020 is filed praying this Court to
quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.2311/2019, pending
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (VI Court),
Mangaluru, arising out of Crime No.73/2017 of Mangaluru
East Police Station, Mangaluru, for the offences punishable
under Sections 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,
1956, insofar as accused No.1 is concerned.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58184
CRL.P No. 5994 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 272 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010246092019


4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that there is no compliance of Section
13 of ITP Act as there is no any such notification and the
officer is not a Special Officer as defined in the section as
well as no specific appointment to deal with the offences
under Sections 13 and 15 of the ITP Act. The learned counsel
would contend that no warrant was obtained by the
Investigating Officer while conducting the raid. No doubt,
Section 15 of the ITP Act is clear that without delay reasons
have to be recorded and even can conduct the raid without
the search warrant. But the person who conducts the raid
must be a Special Officer and he must be authorized to
conduct the raid under Section 13 of the ITP Act. The learned
counsel in support of his arguments relies upon the
judgment of this Court passed in Crl.P.No.101909/2023
dated 07.11.2025, wherein this Court discussed in detail the
judgment passed in Crl.P.No.201645/2023 dated
10.04.2024, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
considered the case of Dharmanna v. State of Karnataka in
Crl.P.No.200915/2023 dated 18.07.2023, Shri Rajath v.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58184
CRL.P No. 5994 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 272 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010246092019


State of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.101975/2021 dated
16.02.2022, Mr. Praveen Kumar M.S. v. State of Karnataka
in Crl.P.No.1398/2017 dated 28.03.2022, wherein also
similar issue was considered and the provisions of Section
15(2) of the ITP Act are mandatory in nature and that in the
absence of any notification to show that the Investigating
Officer was a Special Police Officer within the definition of
2(i) of ITP Act, the investigation is not sustainable in law.
This Court in paragraph No.9 also taken note of regarding
non-compliance is concerned and quashed the proceedings.
The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court
Sections 13 and 15 of the ITP Act apart from the principles
laid down in the judgments referred supra.
5. The learned Additional SPP appearing for
respondent/State would contend that the person who
conducted raid is also a Officer of the rank of Inspector of
Police. But with regard to the issuance of notification and he
has been specially appointed as Special Police Officer by the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58184
CRL.P No. 5994 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 272 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010246092019


State for dealing with the offences under this Act is
concerned, no such notification is relied upon.
6. Having considered the grounds which have been
urged in the petition as well as considering the submission
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Additional SPP appearing for the State, no doubt, the
offences invoked against this petitioner is under Sections
3(1), 4, 5 and 8 of the ITP Act in Crl.P.No.5994/2019 and
Sections 4 and 5 of the ITP Act in Crl.P.No.272/2020. When
specific ground is urged by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there is no any notification for having
authorized to deal with the offences under the special
enactment and he has been appointed as a Special Officer,
the principles laid down in the judgment of the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court is aptly applicable to both the cases and
both the matters involve similar question of law though of
different police station. When the question of law involved
are the same, both the petitions are considered together and
disposed of.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58184
CRL.P No. 5994 of 2019
C/W CRL.P No. 272 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010246092019


7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
Both the petitions are allowed. The proceedings
initiated against the petitioner in
C.C.Nos.3260/2017 and 2311/2019 are quashed.


Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE

MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13