The court emphasized that the power to quash a complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly and as an exception, following the guidelines and parameters laid down by previous judgments.

JUDGMENT

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - The Revisional application has been filed by the accused/petitioner praying for quashing of criminal investigation in Newtown Police Station Case No. 524/2018, Under Sections 3/4/5/6/7 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956.

2. That on 08.12.2018 between 23.15 to 23.30 hrs, while on duty, the opposite party no. 2, Inspector of Police, New Town, Police Station received a telephonic information from Bidhannagar Police Commissionate that illegal prostitution was going on inside a flat namely Sudarshan Vista, DF - 35, Kolkata- 156, under Newtown Police Station.

3. The premises also was found inhabited by one another male person who identified himself as Arjun Halder S/O Shyam Halder. On interrogation they disclosed that the room at the said premises have been used as a brothel by the above noted Arjun Halder and his another associate namely Sankar Maity @ Raj and very often he used to procure girls for sexual relaxation for male customers, and also admitted that the subjects viz. (i) Diganta Bora S/O Chittaranjan Bora, (ii) Siba Kumar S/O Padamanabhan, (iii) Shubhendu Mandal S/O Biswanath Mandal and (iv) Pradip Ray (21 years) S/O Bablu Ray is the customer and the ladies had been procured by him and Sankar Maity @ Raj for sexual relaxation of the male counterparts.

4. Articles and cash as per seizure list, prima facie supports the offences in the registered case. Four men including the petitioner were found in 'immodest' condition. One man namely Arjun Halder was running a brothel in the said premises with another person namely Shantanu Maity @ Raj and they procured the women for sexual relaxation of male customers. The time of raid and seizure is between 23.15 hrs to 23.40 hrs. The complainant on being prima facie satisfied that the place (place of occurrence) was used as a brothel for commercial sexual exploitation in exchange of money arrested the accused persons and filed this case under Section 3/4/5/6/7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

5. The petitioner's case is that he was relaxing and enjoying with friends when the opposite party no. 2 suddenly and without any warrant of arrest the petitioner and other named in the FIR, on seizure of all articles in his possession.

6. The petitioner denies the total allegation as made by the complainant in the above mentioned case.

7. Mr. A. K. Chowdhury Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the total investigation in this case is false and baseless and the investigation should not be permitted to continue.

8. The women (all adults) in the incident/case have made no allegations. One of the women present is a friend of the petitioner and as such the question of trafficking does not arise.

9. The offence alleged against the petitioner is totally false and the Sections under which the case has been registered are totally baseless and without any proof or evidence and the case has been filed only to harass the petitioner with ulterior motive and personal grudge.

10. As such the total case being false and fabricated, the first information report in this case should be quashed so that the investigation does not proceed.

11. Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Learned Counsel for both the opposite parties has submitted that there is sufficient materials in this case, for the with the investigation to proceed as a prima facie case of cognizable offence has been made out against the petitioner.

12. By filing this application the petitioner/accused is intentionally delaying the investigation thereby hampering the duty of the police, who is only carrying out the duties as laid down by the law. The said conduct of petitioner/accused is obstructing the process of law, intending to wipe out the evidence by efflux of time and delay.

13. The counsel for the opposite parties further submits that this is sheer Abuse of process of law and the revisional application should thus be dismissed.

14. Considering the submissions of the parties and the materials on record including th