Dumpala Srikar vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 2565 Tel

             HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

             CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1744 of 2021

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

seeking quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 in

Crime No.88 of 2021 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad,

which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 370,

370 (A) (2) of I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic

(Prevention) Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 has been running the

brothel house at H.No.8-1-329/A/1/15, Kohesar Colony, Shaikpet,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, by procuring the sex workers by luring

them that he will pay huge money and also contacting the customers

through Lokanto app and collecting Rs.1,000/- per customer for

having sex with the sex workers. A-1 used to send the customers to

the sexual workers, L.Ws.2 and 3, as they are also residing in the

above said premises and L.Ws.2 and 3 used to give condoms to the

customers to participate in sex with several workers. It is also

alleged in the F.I.R. that A-1 sent A-2 and A-3 to the above said

premises to have sexual intercourse with L.Ws.2 and 3. Meanwhile,

on receipt of credible information, the Sub-Inspector of Police,

raided the place and apprehended A-2 and A-3 and rescued the

victims with the assistance of Women Police Constables; recorded

the confessional statements of A-2 and A-3, seized two mobile

phones, net cash of Rs.1,000/- each from the possession of A-2 and

A-3 and 10 un-used condoms kept on the bed of the above house in

the presence of panchas. After following the procedure prescribed,

the police registered a case in Crime No.88 of 2021 for the offences

punishable under Sections 370, 370(A) (2) of I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4

and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

entire allegations made in the F.I.R. are absolutely false and the

petitioner never committed such offence, he never involved in any

such immoral activity and he is not the customer. It is further

submitted that when the petitioner was proceeding on his two

wheeler vehicle, he had noticed some quarrelling at the premises

referred to above and out of curiosity, he went there and in the

meantime the police came there and un-necessarily arrested the

petitioner though he is no way connected with the said offence. It is

also submitted that as per the complaint and remand report, all the

allegations are against A-1 only and in so far this petitioner is

concerned except stating that he was present in the house there is no

allegation that he had participated in sex with the female sex

workers, who were present there and, therefore, no offence is made

out against the petitioner and as such continuation of the criminal

proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 is an abuse of process of law.

It is further submitted that the petitioner is a young boy aged about

20 years, prosecuting B-Tech-III year in Spoorthy Engineering

College at B.N. Reddy Nagar, Ranga Reddy District and if the

proceedings are to be continued, his career is at stake and his future

will be ruined. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the

petitioner-A3.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that

petitioner/A-3 is liable for charge under Section 370 (A) (2) I.P.C and

prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. The scope and exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

has time and again come before the Apex Court. It is settled

position of law that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be

exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. It is also

settled position of law that if any abuse of the process leading to

injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would

be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in

the absence of specific provisions in the Statute.

7. In this regard, the land mark judgment is the State of

Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down

the following guidelines.

"In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the

(1992) SCC (Crl.) 426

exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155 (2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance

of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

8. In Prof. R.K.Vijayasarathy and another v. Sudha Seetham

and another2 the Apex Court held that "where the averments in the

complaint read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients necessary

to constitute offences under the Penal Code, it amounts to abuse of

process of law".

9. In the instant case also, the case of the prosecution is that A-1

sent A-2 and A-3 to the above said premises to have sexual

intercourse with L.Ws.2 and 3. The specific case of the petitioner,

who is an Engineering Student, aged about 20 years, is that on the

date of incident while he was proceeding on his two-wheeler

vehicle, he noticed some quarrelling at the premises referred to

above and out of curiosity he stopped the vehicle and standing

there and in the meantime, the police people came there and

arrested the petitioner though he is in no way connected with the

said crime. Further, as per the complaint and remand report itself

show that all the allegations are against A-1 only and that it is not

the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had participated in

sex with the female sex workers, who were present at the premises,

(2019) 3 Scale 563

except stating that the petitioner and A-2 were present at the place.

Further, the petitioner is a young boy, aged about 20 years,

studying B.Tech-III year and if the proceedings are to be continued

without his fault, his career will be marred.

10. In view of the above facts and circumstances and for the

foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that continuation

of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 would

amount to abuse of process of law. Having regard to the law laid

down in the judgments cited supra, I find that it is a fit case to

exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the

proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 only in Crime No.88 of 2021

of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad.

11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The

proceedings initiated against the petitioner/A-3 in Crime No.88 of

2021 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad are hereby quashed.

12. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in

this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

09.09.2021 Gsn/gkv