Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 2149
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.S.Gadkari, Sharmila U.Deshmukh, JJ.
Shakuntala Karamveer Sarsath - Appellant
Versus
Atul Mohite - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 5127 of 2022
Decided On : 25-09-2023
Ankush Dhokale, Advocate, Anita Marbhal, Advocate, M.H.Mhatre, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that individuals identified as victims in prostitution-related cases are entitled to protection under the law, and that lawful actions taken by police and magistrates in such contexts do not constitute illegal detention.
Headnote:
EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS VIOLATION - Article 19(1)(g), Article 21 of the Constitution of India, The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act - The court discussed the violation of the Petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21, emphasizing the right to practice a profession and the right to live with dignity. The court interpreted the provisions of the PITA Act and the legal framework surrounding the treatment of individuals in prostitution cases, concluding that the actions taken by the police and the magistrate were lawful and did not constitute illegal detention.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a beautician, was detained by police during a raid at a salon suspected of operating as a front for prostitution. She claimed her detention violated her fundamental rights, asserting she was wrongfully identified as a victim of prostitution and subjected to inhumane treatment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioner was treated as a victim rather than an accused and that her detention was lawful under the PITA Act. The court concluded that there was no violation of her fundamental rights as the police acted on credible information regarding illegal activities.
Issues: Whether the Petitioner was illegally detained and whether her fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 were violated by the police and the magistrate's actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the police acted within their legal authority based on credible information and that the magistrate's orders were consistent with established legal principles regarding the treatment of individuals in prostitution cases.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Petition, finding no merit in the claims of illegal detention or violation of fundamental rights.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
A.S. GADKARI, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties herein, taken up for final hearing.
2. Petitioner has invoked extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for alleged violation of her fundamental right to practice the profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business as contemplated under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, by the Respondents and for declaration that the action of Respondents against the Petitioner amounts to illegal detention, in violation of her fundamental right of the Beauticians guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.
3. Heard Mr.Dhokale, learned counsel for Petitioner and Mrs.Mhatre, learned A.P.P. for Respondent-State. Perused entire record annexed to the Petition.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that, she is a family oriented woman having responsibility to maintain her two children aged about 20 and 15 years and an old aged ailing father. In order to maintain her family financially, the Petitioner has pursued a course of Beautician, enabling to earn for her livelihood. She has worked as professional beautician for various Salons and Spas for the past several years. At the relevant time, the Petitioner was working as 'Beautician' in a Salon known as 'Destiny Salon and Spa' situated at Kandivali (West). She had joined the said Salon as a professional beautician on 7/2/2022.
4.1) That, on 11/2/2022 at about 17.45 hours (5.45 p.m.) the Police Officer attached to Kandivali Police Station i.e. the Respondent No.1 herein accompanied with the police team purportedly entered into the said Salon and conducted a raid at its premises without any warrant or Order and took the Petitioner and three other woman Beautician/Therapists working therein from a police van to Kandivali Police Station. They reached Kandivali Police Station at about 20.00 hours (8.00 p.m.). During the said raid Petitioner's mobile and other belongings were taken into custody by the police and she neither allowed to contact nor to speak with any of her family members.
5. It is stated that, at that time a woman Police Officer told the Petitioner and other women at the said spot, that whoever would pay Rs.1, 00, 000.00, shall be released from the custody immediately or else a case under The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (for short, "PITA Act") would be lodged against them. As the Petitioner did not comply with the said demand, she had to spend entire night in the Police Station, even though she was not involved in such crime. That, a Crime No. 106 of 2022 came to be registered by Respondent No.1 under Ss. 370(3) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3, 4, 5 & 7(1) of PITA Act. The Petitioner has been shown as a victim of prostitution, working in a brothel in the said crime. On the next date i.e. on 12/2/2022 the Petitioner along with other three Beautician women were produced before the learned Magistrate at Esplanade Court, Mumbai. The Petitioner pleaded before the learned Magistrate to be innocent. However, the learned Magistrate directed the said women to be sent in Kandivali Rescue Home, S.V. Road, Kandivali (W.) till 14/2/2022. That on 14/2/2022 Petitioner was thereafter produced before the learned Magistrate, 54th Court, Sewree, Mumbai, when she again pleaded and requested the learned Magistrate that, she has not committed any crime, is innocent and is not in the vocation of prostitution. However, the learned Magistrate issued directions to the Respondent No.1 to keep the Petitioner and other three beautician women at Navjeevan Female Corrective Institution, Deonar, Mumbai for rehabilitation.
5.1) It is the further case of the Petitioner that, the Respondent No.1 did not inform her family members after she was lodged to the said Female Rescue Home or Navjeevan Female Corrective Institution. That, after her son got the knowledge of her incarceration at the sa
