( 1 ) THE applicant Swami Mick Monassan is accused No. 1 in a Criminal Case No. 2284 of 1982 filed by the complainant Popatlal P. Mistry opponent No. 2 herein before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Court No. 15) at Ahmedabad for the alleged offences under secs. 5 (1) (b) and 5 (1) (c) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act 1956 (Act No. 104 of 1956) which will hereinafter be referred to as the said Act. Accused No. 2 in the said Criminal Case is one Guru Freddy. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are residents of village Gurukula named Island Home Narayana Gurukula Foundation Ramanthali P. O. 670308 Cannanore District Kerala. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has passed an order dated 1-9-1982 for the issuance of the summons to both the accused under sec. 5 (1) (b) and 5 (1) (c) of the said Act. Accused No. 1 who will hereinafter be referred to as the applicant having been aggrieved by the aforesaid order has filed the present Criminal Misc. Application under sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 to quash the process.

( 2 ) ). It is necessary to have a perspective of the allegations of the complainant in order to ultimately appreciate the legality of the impugned order.

( 3 ) ). Complainant Popatlal P. Mistry opponent No. 2 herein is the father of one Miss Jivantika who was born on 10/02/1960 She passed B. Sc. and B. Ed. Examinations and toop up serving as a teacher with Amrat Jyoti School situated at Ambawadi Ahmedabad. It is alleged that during the period of her service he came into contact with accused No. 2 who had been to Ahmedabad. It is pertinent to note that the complainant is not in a position to state in his complaint as to how she came into contact with accused No. 2. However the allegation of the complainant that is of opponent No. 2 is that accused No. 2 induced Jivantika to go to Kerala and join the Ashram. It is also alleged that accused No. 2 had offered Jivantika easy financial gains and had thereby induced her to go to the Ashram. It is further alleged that though Jivantika has attained the age of majority she has not yet acquired maturity to be able to take correct and right decisions affecting her life. Jivantika went to the Ashram at Kerala and stayed there from April 198 2/07/1982. As she did not return from Kerala within a reasonable time the opponent No. 2 became suspicious about the activities of the Ashram. He therefore followed her to the Ashram. He states in his complaint that he inquired from the local people particularly Gujaratis about the activities of the Ashram and about the activities of the applicant and the accused No. 2. He heard the gossips in the town which caused him great worry for the future of his daughter. He learnt that these two persons indulge in illegal activities pertaining to women and girls. He also learnt that these two persons capture the girls and women by giving them inducements bring them over and keep them in luxurious atmosphere. Thereafter by foul means they make misuse of women and take undue advantage of their immature understanding. It is alleged that though these two persons styled themselves as Swamis they are in fact go between links to sell such women who have fallen prey to the dishonest fraudulent and vicious motives. The opponent No. 2 contacted his daughter Jivantika and succeeded in bringing her back to Ahmedabad with him. The found that Jivantika was under the influence of the applicant and accused No. 2 but the influence started fading away till she received a letter dated 20-8-1982 from accused No. 2. The petitioner came to Ahmedabad and presented a Habeas Corpus Petition bearing No. 1207 of 1982 alleging that Jivantika who was a major women was unlawfully confined by her father. The petition was heard by a Divisional Bench of this Court which rejected it. Thereafter it is alleged having been frustrated in his designs to take Jivantika back to the Ashram the applicant turned lunatic and gave a criminal intimidation to Ji