The fundamental rights of a major victim to choose her residence and vocation must be considered, and she cannot be compelled to reside in a corrective institution against her wishes.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Shinde, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing 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 Respondent No.2 - Victim XYZ is alleged to have been compelled to involve herself in prostitution, the identity of Respondent No.2 herein needs to be concealed, and hence she is referred to as XYZ. The Registry is directed to maintain the record accordingly.

3. By this application, the Applicant takes exception to the order dated 20/03/2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur by which order the Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2019 filed by the Applicant herein came to be rejected and resultantly the order dated 23/01/2019 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandharpur, District Solapur, in Crime No.19 of 2019 sending Respondent No.2 herein i.e. Victim XYZ in the aforesaid crime for a period of one year for her care and protection in Corrective Institution i.e. Shaskiya Mahila Rajya Gruh, Prerana Mahila Wasti Gruh, Baramati, Dist. Pune came to be confirmed.

4. Brief facts leading to filing of the present application are as under:-

It is the case of the prosecution that Respondent No.2 herein was found in a lodge in a raid effected by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Pandharpur. FIR bearing CR No.19 of 2019 came to be registered with Pandharpur Taluka Police Station against 11 accused persons. Respondent No.2 - XYZ being victim of the crime was rescued and was temporarily kept in the custody of a social worker. The Pandharpur Taluka Police filed an application before the learned JMFC, Pandharpur praying therein to issue directions to keep Respondent No.2 - XYZ in the Corrective Institution. The victim has filed an application before the learned Magistrate on 17/01/2019 requesting to permit her to go to home. Thereafter the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of victim on 19/01/2019 wherein she stated that she wants to go to her home and she will not do the said mistake again in future. The learned Magistrate also recorded the statement of the Applicant on 23/01/2019, wherein the Applicant demanded the custody of the victim. The learned JMFC also directed the Probation Officer to make an inquiry as per provisions contemplated in the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short "the said Act"). Accordingly the probation officer after making inquiry submitted his report to the learned JMFC. As indicated herein above, the learned JMFC vide order dated 23/01/2019 sent the victim to the corrective institution for her care and protection for a period of one year.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 23/01/2019 passed by the learned JMFC, the Applicant herein has filed Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2019 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur. After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur has dismissed the Appeal by the impugned judgment and order dated 20/03/2019. It is the said order dated 20/03/2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, rejecting the Appeal of the Applicant which is taken exception to by way of the present Criminal Application.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are improper, incorrect and illegal. He submitted that the learned Magistrate has wrongly relied upon the report of probation officer. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the financial condition of applicant is weak as the family of applicant is doing business of fishing and supplying fish to the hotel. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that, it is the bounden duty of the State to protect the interest of the victim hav