Back
2019 Supreme(Bom) 854
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.S. SHINDE, J.
Soni Lalima Tamang - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2453 of 2019
Decided On : 16-07-2019
Rati Sinhasane, Adv., Umesh R. Mankapure, Adv., A.R. Patil, Adv.
The court emphasized the importance of the victim's care, protection, and rehabilitation based on the evidence of her involvement in prostitution and the lack of evidence of the petitioner's relationship with the victim.
Headnote:
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act - Custody of Victim - Sections 370, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a challenge to the order rejecting the application for custody of a victim involved in a case under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code. The victim, referred to as Petitioner No.2, was alleged to have been compelled to involve herself in prostitution and was sent to a Corrective Institution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the victim's involvement in prostitution was prima facie established, and her custody was necessary for her care, protection, and rehabilitation. The court also noted the lack of evidence to prove the relationship between the petitioner and the victim.
Issues: The main issue was the custody of the victim and whether the petitioner, being the victim's sister, was entitled to her custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the prima facie involvement of the victim in prostitution, the lack of evidence of the petitioner's relationship with the victim, and the need for the victim's care, protection, and rehabilitation.
Final Decision: The court rejected the writ petition and upheld the decision to send the victim to the Corrective Institution for her care, protection, and rehabilitation.
JUDGMENT :
S.S. Shinde, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. At the outset it is required to be noted that since the crime registered by the Police is under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 so also under the Indian Penal Code and Victim is alleged to have been compelled to involve herself in prostitution, the identity of the victim needs to be concealed, and hence she is referred to as Petitioner No.2 - XYZ. The Registry is directed to maintain the record accordingly.
3. Brief facts as disclosed in the Petitioner are as under : It is the case of the Petitioner that, Petitioner No.1 herein is the sister of Petitioner No.2, who is the victim in the aforesaid First Information Report. The Petitioners herein are challenging order dated 25.03.2019 passed by District Judge 4, Sangli in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2019 arising out of Order dated 02.02.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangli in Criminal Misc. No. No. 622 of 2018 rejecting the application of the present Petitioner for the custody of Victim XYZ.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner No.1 that, the First Information Report was filed at the behest of Lata Rajendra Gavade wherein it is stated that the Complainant received an information that there is immoral trafficking going on in Sangli District. As per the information the panchas police and punter reached the spot and a trap was set. Thereafter, fake customer (punter) was sent inside wherein he saw one girl. There were four girls in the room. When the panchas and the police staff went inside the said rooms, they saw that the four girls seating in the said room. The said girls disclosed that they are from Bangladesh and have been brought here for prostitution wherein they received Rs.500/- per customer. Thereafter the First Information Report in question came to be filed for offences punishable under Sections 370 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3,4,5 and 6 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act against Mala Madar and Goda Awale Paraganda.
5. It is further the case of the Petitioner that, Victim XYZ along with other girls were taken into custody and have been sent to Bhagini Nivedita Protection Home, Sangli. Thereafter the charge-sheet came to filed on 27.12.2018. Petitioner No.1 herein filed an application for the custody of Petitioner No.2 - Victim XYZ on the ground that Victim XYZ is doing job in a private company at Pune, and if she remains in the protection home, she will loose her job. Petitioner No.1, being sister, is the legal guardian of Petitioner No.2 Victim XYZ who is entitled for the custody of Victim XYZ.
6. It is further submitted that, the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangli by its order dated 02.02.2019 rejected the application filed by Petitioner No.1 herein on the ground that prima facie involvement of Victim XYZ can be seen from the material on record and that she has no permanent address and sent the Victim/XYZ Asha Kiran, Mahila Shasakiya Nivas Sthan, Karve Naka, Opposite to Market Yard, Karad, Dist. Satara (herein after referred to as "Corrective Institution"). There is no documents to show that the petitioner is sister of the victim. Petitioner No.1 preferred an appeal under Section 17 (6) of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangli. The learned District Judge - 4, Sangli by its order dated 25.03.2019 did not deem it appropriate to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court and rejected the appeal filed by the Petitioner No.1 herein.
7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the learned District Judge - 4 Sangli in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2019 arising out of order dated 02.02.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangli in Criminal Misc. Application No. 621 of 2018, Petitioner No.1 filed this Writ Petition challenging the
