1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5802 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

1. H. Ganga Setty,
Aged about 56 years,
Son of Late Hanuma Setty,
Residing at No.SFS 208,
Mother Dairy Circle,
Yelahanka New Town,
Bangalore – 560 064.

2. Chetan @ Akthar Shamy M.,

Aged about 46 years,
Son of Iddinabbam M.,
No.12, 2nd Cross,
Siddaramappa Layout,
St. Thomas Town Post,
Lingarajpuram,
Bengaluru – 560 084.

Permanent Address:
Flat No.404,
“Mercelaya Castle”,
Silva Road,
 2

Velnesiya, Kankanadi,
Mangaluru – 575 002. …PETITIONERS

(By Shri M.T.Nanaiah, Senior Advocate for Shri

M.R.C.Manohar, Advocate)

AND:

1. The State of Karnataka by

Ashok Nagar Police Station,
Represented by State Public
Prosecutor,
High Court Complex,
Bangalore – 560 001.

2. K.S.Tanveer,
Police Inspector,
Central Crime Branch,
(Women and Narcotics Squad),
Bangalore – 560 002. …RESPONDENTS

(By Shri Chetan Desai, Government Pleader for Respondent

No.1/State)

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the FIR and
complaint in Crime No.189/2016 registered by Ashok Nagar
Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under
Sections 370(3) 370(A)(2), 294, 109, 120(B) of IPC against the
petitioners who are arrayed as accused No.38 and 39 and now
the case is pending on the file of XI Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day,

the court made the following:
 3

ORDER

Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri M.T.Nanaiah

appearing for the counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader.

2. It transpires that on 7.5.2016 at about 10p.m.,

respondent no.2 had received credible information through his

informants that at building bearing no.50, Gold Tower, Times

Bar and Restaurant, Residency Road, Bengaluru, women from

out of the State had been brought there as bar girls and they

were wearing skimpy dresses and were dancing for the

customers present in order to tempt them for sexual activity.

The customers were equally excited and were throwing money

at the bar girls to encourage them to dance better. On account

of the said act, it was alleged that the Rules and Regulations

framed by the Government to maintain law and order have been

violated. Based on this information, the second respondent is

said to have recorded the information in writing in his inward

register and had secured panchas and had proceeded to the

 4

place and he had informed the same to his superior Police

Inspector and obtained permission to conduct a raid on the bar

and restaurant. On 7.5.2016, at 11.15 p.m., one of the

informants was sent in advance to confirm about the activities

that were said to be on at the Bar and Restaurant and thereafter

the raiding party had gone in, to find that the women were all

dancing and that they were skimpily dressed and loud music

was on and there were patrons throwing money at them.

Accordingly, they arrested all the persons who were witnessing

the dance and seized money on their person apart from their cell

phones and cases have been registered against the petitioners

and others.

3. The learned Senior Advocate would point out that the

entire proceedings are illegal, in that, it is the settled legal

position that without registering a First Information Report

(FIR), a raid could not have been conducted in the manner as

stated and this would vitiate the proceedings. Even if the

general diary entry is made, it would only indicate the reason

 5

for such action being taken. In the instant case, there was

credible information that the dancing at the bar was well

advertised and that generally, the dance would go on almost

till midnight or beyond and hence there was no such urgency

for the raid to have been conducted without following the

procedure in law. Secondly, it is pointed out that even if the

case could be sustained, it could not be against the present

petitioners, as they were the owner and lessee of the premises

and admittedly, they were not present at the scene. Therefore,

there could not be any vicarious liability of either encouraging

the women to dance and throwing money at them or of any

human trafficking or other sexual activity for which the women

were sought to be exploited. In the absence of any such

incriminating material, proceedings against the petitioners are

misconceived and would require to be quashed.

4. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand,

would seek to justify the action and would submit that given the

circumstances of the case, in order to arrest the accused red-

 6

handed while indulging in such activity, that the raid was

necessary and also seeks to contend that it is not a vicarious

liability that is being fastened on the present petitioners, but

since they were the owner and the lessee of the bar and

restaurant, that they are named as the accused as they have

facilitated the entire episode.

5. Given the above circumstances of the case, it is well

established that in such circumstances, the question of

preliminary investigation or inquiry without registering FIR or

any such raid being conducted without registering FIR would

be illegal and would vitiate the proceedings.

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the

proceedings are quashed insofar as the petitioners are

concerned.

Sd/-
JUDGE

nv