SRI RUDRAPPA S/O GURULINGAPPA NAVALAGI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16879
CRL.P No. 102564 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020177072026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102564 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RUDRAPPA S/O. GURULINGAPPA NAVALAGI,
AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED,
R/O. KAVASAKAN GALLI, ATHANI-591304,
TAL: ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. SRI SHRINATH S/O. GORAK WAGHAMARE,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. BEVANUR, TAL: ATHANI-591304,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAJENDRA R. PATIL, ADV. FOR
SRI SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH ATHANI POLICE STATION,
NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD,
BENCH AT: DHARWAD-580011.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEENA DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.
528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT
REGISTERED IN ATHANI P.S. CRIME NO.506/2026 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3, 4 AND 5 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC
ACT, MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A & B IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS/
ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 IS CONCENRED PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC ATHANI, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16879
CRL.P No. 102564 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020177072026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have filed the present petition under
Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (482 of CrPC) to quash the entire
proceedings in Crime No.506/2026 of Athani Police Station,
Belagavi District, pending on the file of learned Principal Civil
Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Athani, for the offence punishable
under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)
Act, 1956 (for short, ‘ITP Act’) .
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as under:
The complainant who is Police Sub-Inspector of Athani
Police Station, had received a credible information that
prostitution is being carried out at Venkateshwara Lodge,
Athani City and therefore, after obtaining prior permission of
Dy.S.P., he raided the said lodge along with the panchas and
his sub-staff. It was found that prostitution was practiced in the
said lodge and therefore, spot mahazar was conducted in the
presence of Malliksab Chandsab Mulla and Suresh Bhajantri
along with accused No.1 and 2 and seized the articles and
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16879
CRL.P No. 102564 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020177072026
lodged the complaint, which came to be registered by the SHO,
Athani Police Station on 27.07.2026 at 09:15 p.m.
3. Now the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused
No.1 and 2 submits that the PSI of Athani Police Station, who
conducted the raid having any authority since there is no such
designation of these police officers as a Special Police Officer,
as required under Section 13 of the ITP Act.
4. It is contended that the mandatory provisions of
Section 15 of the ITP Act is also not followed by the
Investigating Officer and therefore, on both these grounds the
proceedings are not sustainable in law.
5. Per contra , learned HCGP would submit that there is
no such notification by the Government which empowers the
Sub-Inspector of Police to be a Special Police Officer as
required under Section 2(i) and 13 of the ITP Act. However, he
submits that the irregularity in registering the case cannot be a
ground to quash the entire proceedings. Learned HCGP
submitted that the reason as to why the Investigating Officer
could not take women, as required under Section 15 of the ITP
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16879
CRL.P No. 102564 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020177072026
Act can only be ascertained at the time of trial and therefore, it
cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has
placed reliance in the case of Hanmanth vs. The State of
Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.201645/2023 dated
10.04.2024; Dharmanna vs. The State of Karnataka in
Criminal Petition No.200915/2023 dated 18.07.2023; Shri.
Rajath vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition
No.101975/2021 dated 16.02.2022, Mr. Praveen Kumar M.S.
vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.1398/2017
dated 28.03.2022 and contended that 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 the ITP Act, the investigating is not sustainable in law.
7. In the case of Dharmanna vs. The State of
Karnataka , the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in para 6 and
7, as stated as below:
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16879
CRL.P No. 102564 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020177072026
“6. Section 13 of the Act specifies that, there shall be
for each area to be specified by the State Government in
this behalf a special police officer appointed by or on behalf
of that Government, for dealing with offences under this
Act in that area.
7. Clause (2) of Section 13 of the Act specifies that,
the special police officer shall not be below the rank of an
Inspector of Police. In the instant case, though the raid was
conducted by the Police Inspector, however, he has not
been designated as special police officer to deal with the
offence under this Act in that area by the State
Government. Hence, conducting of the raid, and
registration of the FIR by the Police Inspector is one
without authority of law.”
8. In the case of Shri.Rajath vs. The State of
Karnataka , after going through the provisions of Section 14,
Section 2 and various other provisions of law, in para 11, it was
observed as below:
“11. The present proceeding is instituted pursuant to a
complaint registered by the Assistant Sub-Inspector to the
Police Inspector of Gokul Road Police Station. It is an
undisputed fact that the informant/complainant is not the
Special Police Officer in terms of the aforequoted statute.
Thus, the very proceeding that is initiated against the
petitioner is based upon a complaint, complainant of which
had no jurisdiction. Therefore, the proceedings would stand
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16879
CRL.P No. 102564 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020177072026
vitiated on account of it being in violation of the afore-
quoted mandate of the statute.”
9. In the case of Mr. Praveen Kumar M.S. vs. State
of Karnataka , this Court has observed that the provisions of
Section 15(2) of the ITP Act are mandatory in nature and the
reading party shall accompanied by a women and another
pancha shall be a person from the locality. In para 7 and 8 of
the order, it was observed as below:
“7. Section 15(2) of the ITP Act reveals that atleast
one of the witness shall be a respectable women from the
said locality at the time of search seizure, but, that was not
done by the police officer. Thereby, there is a gross
violation of Section 15(2) of the ITP Act. That apart, the
learned counsel produces notification of the Government of
Karnataka dated 02.08.2008 wherein it states that who will
be the officer for investigation under the ITP Act, Section
13 of the Act states that where not below the rank of
Inspector of police is permitted to investigate the matter.
8. Here in this case, the Police Inspector who
registered the complaint and handed over the same to the
Sub-Inspector of Police for investigating is also violation of
provisions of Section 13 of the Act which is also abuse of
the process of the law. Such being the case, allowing the
police to investigate the matter is nothing but the abuse of
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16879
CRL.P No. 102564 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020177072026
the process of the law. Hence, the FIR is liable to be
quashed.”
10. It is evident that the provisions of Section 2(i) of
ITP Act lay down that only a Special Police Officer is
empowered to investigate the matter. It appears that there is
no such notification issued by the Government wherein a Police
Officer of the rank of the Circle Inspector of Police/Police
Inspector or Dy.S.P. of the Police Stations are the Special Police
Officers within the meaning of 2(i) of the ITP Act. In the
absence of any such powers conferred upon the Police Officers,
it cannot be said that the Police Inspectors of all the Police
Stations are the Special Police Officers within the meaning of
Section 2(i) of the ITP Act.
11. So also, it is evident that in the case on hand the
investigating officer had not taken a woman along with the
raiding party for the purpose of raid. Section 12(2) of the Act is
mandatory in nature. There cannot be any doubt that in the
absence of any averments in the mahazar that no woman was
available or no person of the locality was available, such a raid
cannot be permitted to the basis of any prosecution. Hence, it
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16879
CRL.P No. 102564 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020177072026
is evident that continuation of the present proceedings would
be nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, the petition
deserves to be allowed.
ORDER
The petition is allowed .
The entire proceedings in Crime No.506/2026 of Athani
Police Station, Belagavi, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)
Act, 1956, pending on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge
(Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Athani, insofar as petitioners/accused No.1
and 2 are concerned, is hereby quashed.
Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed off.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
CLK
CT-AN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46