The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition filed to quash the order dated 26.02.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereunder the cognizance of the offense under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 was taken by learned Magistrate, held that when the allegation against the petitioner is maximum of as a customer to visit a ‘brothel’ or merely present thereof then certainly in want of any conspiracy, he cannot be prosecuted under Section 3/4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic Act.
Brief Facts:
The informant, a Sub-Inspector, alleged that while he was on patrolling duty, he started the search of a vehicle, where he saw three persons and a lady inside the car, doing illicit acts/behavior. They were apprehended by the police. The informant also seized the car and produced the arrested persons for taking action under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that the lady co-accused was not known to this petitioner, as she took a lift for a short destination that was given by the owner of the vehicle i.e. co-accused Raj Kumar Poddar. He argued that the conveyance in the present case, the alleged car may be said as a ‘brothel’ in view of section 2(a) of the Immoral Traffic Act, but the petitioner can be said to be merely a customer because he is not the owner of the vehicle in question.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the petitioner was found inside the vehicle with a girl along with three other male accused persons and was found involved in doing indecent/immoral activities as per the statement of the eyewitnesses of the occurrence who are the police personnel, whereas it is conceded that the same appears not specific against this petitioner.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that as on the ground of search conducted in violation of Section 15(2) of the Immoral Traffic Act or in violation of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C., what maximum can be ascertained is the irregularity while searching a premise or any conveyance which may be termed as ‘brothel’ in view of Section 2(a) of the Immoral Traffic Act, which certainly, cannot be the only basis for quashing of the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
However, the Court said that when the allegation against the petitioner is maximum of as a customer to visit a ‘brothel’ or merely present thereof then certainly in want of any conspiracy, he cannot be prosecuted under Section 3/4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic Act.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the petition, held that the impugned order 26.02.2016 passed by learned C.J.M. is quashed and set aside with all its consequential proceedings qua petitioner.
Case Title: Md. Raja @ Rameej Raja v The State Of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha
Case no.: CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45499 of 2016
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Matloob Rab
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
