Madras High Court
Siddique vs State By Inspector Of Police on 7 July, 2021
1 Crl O.P. No.11311 OF 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Crl.O.P.No.11311 of 2015
and C.M.P. Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
1. Siddique S/o.Mohamed Yusuf
2. Zakir Hussain S/o.Mohamed Haneefa ...Petitioners
Vs.
State by Inspector of Police
Vridhachalam Police Station
Vridhachalam
Cuddalore District
(Crime No.302 of 2014) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records in C.C.No.103 of 2014 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate Vridhachalam and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 Crl O.P. No.11311 OF 2015
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Vijayasankar
For Respondent : Mr.E.Rajthilak
Counsel for the Government
******
ORDER
This Criminal Original petition has been filed seeking to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.103 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate Vridhachalam and to quash the same insofar as the
petitioners are concerned.
2. The case of the petitioners is that a charge sheet has been filed
against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(a),
4(1), 5 (1)(a) of Immoral Traffic Offenders Act. The petitioners have
been arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively in the above said
case. According to the prosecution, it is alleged that on 21.6.2014 at
about 4.00 pm., the first accused induced the witness Mohan by stating
that he is having girl for prostitution and that he took the witness to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
lodge of the 3rd accused and the 1st accused introduced to the Manager of
the said lodge namely, the 2nd accused stating that the witness was taken
by the 2nd accused to the victim by name Gloris who was staying in Room
No.601 in the said lodge. The investigation was completed by the
respondent police and a charge sheet had been filed against the
petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1)
of the Immoral Traffic Offenders Act and the same is taken on file in
C.C.No.103 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Vridhachalam. In view of the above filing of CC. No.103 of 2014
against the petitioners, the petitioners have filed this Criminal Original
Petition to call for the records as the entire prosecution insofar as the
petitioners are concerned is absolutely, illegal, contrary to the materials
on record and liable to be quashed.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
proceedings in C.C.No.103 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Vridhachalam are arbitrarily being maintained and the
same is liable to be quashed for the reason that no prima facie case has
been made out against the accused/petitioners herein for the offences
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
punishable under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1), 5(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic
Offenders Act, which is alleged to have been committed by the
petitioners herein.
4. He further submitted that the charge sheet relied upon for the
purpose of committing the petitioners/accused is without any admissible
evidence and the witnesses who have supported the case does not
connect the petitioners with the crime and therefore the proceedings
before the Court below is liable to be quashed.
5. He further submitted that the respondent has only relied upon
the confession of the co-accused for the purpose of charging the
petitioners for the offences alleged. The respondent has also relied upon
the statement of one Gloris who is neither the accused nor the witness.
Further it has been submitted that a person cannot be charged for the
offences only relying upon the evidence of the co-accused which is
inadmissible. In this case, except the co-accused statement, no other
material was produced connecting the petitioners with the crime.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6.He further submitted that the witnesses do not directly connect
the accused and they only give a hearsay version and there is no direct
material to connect the petitioners with the crime. Further, the case is
squarely covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Bhajanlal's case.
7.On a perusal of the records, it is clear that the A-2 and A3 had
colluded with A1 for committing the act of prostitution under Immoral
Traffic Offenders Act. It is also seen that there are witnesses available to
narrate the facts happened on that day which shows that the prima facie
case is made out against the petitioners and it is clear that there is no
question of law involved in this case and it is only a matter of fact that it
cannot be gone into by this Court sans either by conducting an enquiry or
Trial. That being the case, this Court is not inclined to accept the version
of the petitioner's counsel as no case is made out in support of the
petitioners herein who are the accused Nos.2 and 3 in the proceedings in
C.C. No.103 of 2014 and hence, this Criminal Original Petition is liable
to be dismissed.
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.,J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
lbm
8. In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. However, the Trial Court is directed to proceed further in this
case as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 are closed.
07.07.2021
Lbm
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
To:
1. Judicial Magistrate Vridhachalam
2. Inspector of Police
Vridhachalam Police Station
Vridhachalam
Cuddalore District
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
Crl.O.P.No.11311 of 2015
and C.M.P. Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
