Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 1330
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.
Kajal Mukesh Singh & Others - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra (Through the Inspector-in-charge of Malad Police Station) - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 6065 of 2020
Decided On : 24-09-2020
For the Petitioners:A.M. Saraogi i/b Siddharth Jaiswal, Advocates.
For the Respondent: M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory summoning of a panel of respectable persons to assist the Magistrate and the need for an inquiry before passing an order for detention under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Headnote:
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act - Victims - Section 17(2), 17(4), 17(5) - The court discussed the interpretation of Sections 17(2), 17(4), and 17(5) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. It highlighted the mandatory summoning of a panel of respectable persons to assist the Magistrate and emphasized the need for an inquiry before passing an order for detention. The court also emphasized the fundamental rights of the victims and the absence of evidence to support their detention, ultimately quashing the impugned orders.
Fact of the Case:
The victims were involved in a prostitution case and were detained under Section 17(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The lower courts upheld the detention orders, leading to the petition challenging the orders. The petitioners argued that the orders were passed without proper application of the law and factual understanding of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower courts had not followed the statutory mandate and had not conducted the necessary inquiry before passing the detention orders. It also emphasized the fundamental rights of the victims and the absence of evidence supporting their detention, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders.
Issues: The issues revolved around the proper application of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, the necessity of an inquiry before detention orders, and the fundamental rights of the victims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory summoning of a panel of respectable persons to assist the Magistrate and the need for an inquiry before passing an order for detention. It also highlighted the fundamental rights of the victims and the absence of evidence to support their detention.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the victims were ordered to be released forthwith. The court also directed the victims to remain present during the trial and provided further directions for their protection and contact information.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State.
2. At the outset, it is worthwhile to mention herein that the petitioners are victims in connection with a crime registered by the Police under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short “the said Act”), who are alleged to have been compelled to involve themselves in prostitution, their identity, therefore, needs to be concealed. The petitioners, therefore, shall be referred to as “victims (A), (B) and (C)”. The Registry is directed to maintain the record accordingly.
3. This petition takes exception to an order dated 19.10.2019 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon under Section 17(2) of the said Act as well as an order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi in Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2019 which upheld the order dated 19.10.2019.
4. The facts in brief can be summarized as follows.
5. The complainant-Rupesh Ramchandra More, Police Constable attached to Social Service Branch, approached the office of the Social Service Branch, Mumbai where he was informed by P.I. Mr. Revle about the secrete information that a person by name Mr. Nijamuddin Khan, a pimp (for short “pimp Nijamuddin”) having mobile No. 9969272311, provides women for prostitution at a guest house in Malad.
6. One Mr. Shahbaz Shoukat Mapari was summoned to act as a decoy. He was supposed to call pimp Nijamuddin from his mobile no. 9769537045. Accordingly, two panchas were summoned. The decoyer called pimp Nijamuddin from his mobile number, upon which pimp Nijamuddin informed the decoyer that it would cost Rs.7,000/- for a victim girl inter alia directing the decoyer to come near Chincholi Bandar signal, Malad (W), Mumbai where the victims would be shown to the decoyer from amongst whom he was supposed to select one victim girl and pimp Nijamuddin will thereafter book a room in a nearby guest house.
7. Accordingly, a trap was arranged and the raiding team left for the spot. A rickshaw came and stopped near the decoy and panch no.1. The rickshaw driver spoke to the decoy. The decoy had paid money to rickshaw driver for prostitution. Thereafter, two victim girls came out of the rickshaw. The decoy along with one victim girl and panch no.1 left in the same rickshaw.
8. P.I. Revle, asked other pancha and few officers of the team to keep a watch on the remaining two victim girls; whereas he along with rest of the members of the raiding team followed the rickshaw carrying the first victim and the decoy. The rickshaw stopped in front of a metal gate of a building near Chincholi Phatak, S.V.. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai. The rickshaw driver, victim girl and panch no.1 went inside the building. After some time, the driver came out and went back towards Chincholi Bandar, Malad (W) to bring remaining two victims. As per the direction of P.I. Revle, members of the raiding team who were keeping vigil over the two victims, arrested the rickshaw driver and the victims and took them in their custody.
9. P.I. Revle, entered into 1st floor of the building named as ‘Madhuban’. There was one “Yatri Guest House”. The first panch was standing near the cash counter. When a raid was conducted the decoy and the victim girl were found in room no.7. The victim was taken into custody from room no.7 of “Yatri Guest House”. The accused and the other two victims were also arrested and taken into custody.
10. The victim (A), (B) and (C) were produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 13.09.2019. There were no complaints of ill-treatment at the hands of Police. The learned Magistrate, for the purpose of verification of the age of the victims as well as to ascertain as to whether they are infected with any sexually transmitted disease, referred them for medical examination. The learned Magistrate, inter alia, called for a report from the Probation Officer in respect of antecedents, character and suitabi
