Landlord not liable for immoral trafficking if unaware that property was used as brothel: Karnataka High Court

A landlord whose property was used as a brothel cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, if he/ she was unaware that the premises were being used for that purpose, the Karnataka High Court held [Prabhuraj v State of Karnataka]. .Single-judge Justice M Nagaprasanna, therefore, quashed the criminal proceedings against a landlord, on the ground that he was not aware that his property was being used to run a brothel."In the light of Section 3(2)(b) of the (Immoral Traffic Prevention Act) and the police themselves acknowledging that the petitioner was not aware of 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," the Court said. .The petition was filed by the owner of a residential premises, which had been let out to accused no 1 through a rent agreement between the parties. The police conducted a search of the premises and found out that the accused was running a brothel. Pursuant to the search, a crime was registered against the petitioner and others under Sections 3 (keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel), 4 (punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution) 5 (procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution) and 6 (detaining a person in premises where prostitution is carried on) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA) and Section 370 (trafficking of persons) of the Indian Penal Code. (IPC).When a notice was issued to the petitioner, he responded that he was unaware of the activities being conducted in the house which he had rented out. The police, however, filed a chargesheet against him under Section 3 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, upon which the petitioner approached the High Court..The petitioner argued that he was the owner of the premises and the activities which were taking place there were not known to him as he was staying far away. The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that as the petitioner is the owner, he can be tried for the offence of allowing premises to be used as a brothel under Section 3 of the Act. .The Court, while considering the case noted that Section 3(2)(b) of the ITPA states that whoever is the owner, lessor, landlord, of a premises and lets it out with the knowledge that the premises or any part of it is intended to be used as a brothel, can be brought under the ambit of the offence. .In the present case, the petitioner clearly stated in his reply that he was not aware that the premises were being used as a brothel and that he lived far away, which the police also acknowledged in the chargesheet filed against him, the Court noted. .It, therefore, allowed the petition and quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner, while adding that the observations made by the court only apply to the present petitioner, and shall not influence proceedings against any other accused pending before any other forums. .Advocate Harish NR represented the petitioner and High Court Government Pleader BJ Rohith represented the State. .[Read Order]