SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Ker) 234

Judges : K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
Baijunath - Appellant
Versus
Station House Officer - Respondent
Case No : Crl. Rev.Pet.No.661,782, 865, 938, 1627, 2605, 3297 of 2003
Decided On : 03/31/2005
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : T.G. Rajendran, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R2 P.C. Iype, Special Public Prosecutor, K.S. Madhusoodanan, Advocate.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 239, 227, 228 and 482 - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 - Sections 5(1)(a), (c) & (d) - Criminal Revision Petitions and Crl.M.C. are filed challenging a common order passed by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kozhikode dismissing five Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions filed by accused Nos.4, 6 to 12 and 14 to 16 in S.C. on the file of that Court contending that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against them and hence they may be discharged under S.227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Held, No need to issue any direction to the Magistrate in these proceedings - Court make it clear that Court have not considered whether it is a fit case in which the learned Sessions Judge shall invoke the powers vested in him under S.319(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - No merit in the Crl.Revision Petitions and Crl.Miscellaneous Cases and they are only to be dismissed - Crl.Revision Petitions Dismissed.

Judgment :-

These Criminal Revision Petitions and Criminal M.C.No.2605 of 2003 are filed challenging a common order passed by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kozhikode dismissing five Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions filed by accused Nos. 4, 6 to 12 and 14 to 16 in S.C.No.124 of 2002 on the file of that court contending that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against them and hence they may be discharged under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Crl.R.P.No.661 of 2003 is filed by the 14th accused in the case. He along with the 11th accused filed Crl.M.P.No.171 of 2002 praying that he may be discharged. Crl.R.P.No.782 of 2003 is filed by accused No.7. A7 to A10 filed Crl. M.P.No.198 of 2002 for the very same relief. Crl. R.P.No.865 of 2003 is filed by the 8th accused in Crl.M.P.No.198 of 2002. Crl.R.P.No.938 of 2003 is filed by the 5th accused. Though he had not filed any petition for discharge, he has filed the Criminal Revision Petition challenging the common order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Crl.R.P.No.1627 of 2003 is filed by the 12th accused who is also a petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.183 of 2002. Crl.M.C.No.2605 of 2003 is filed by the 6th accused who filed Crl.M.P.No.184 of 2002 in the court below. Crl.M.C.No.3297 of 2003 is filed on 21-4-2003 by the 11th accused who is the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.171 of 2002 for quashing the F.I.R. and all further proceedings against him.

3. One Women Organisation by name Anweshi Women’s Counselling Centre filed a complaint before the Hon’ble Chief Minister with a copy of the same to the Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode City, alleging that flesh trade was flourishing in Kozhikode. It was alleged that some rackets under the cover of Beauty Parlours, Ice cream Parlours and S.T.D. Booths are running the same. It was alleged that these rackets prevail over woman especially young girls using various methods and compel them to have illicit intercourse with rich and influential people. It was alleged that the first accused Sreedevi attracted a number of girls and supplied them to various persons. The first accused was running the Beauty Parlour under the name and style of Mahal Beauty Parlour and subsequently that was converted as an Ice Cream Parlour known as R.K.S, Ice Cream Parlour. According to the defacto complainant, this Parlour was one of the main centers of flesh trade. It was alleged that even the students in the University Centre were lured by the first accused and supplied them to business men and others. It was alleged that once a girl falls into the trap, she will not be able to escape from the racket even if she wants to escape.

4. A case was registered as Crime No.282 of 1997 under Sections 361, 366, 366A, 377, 109 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(1)(a),(c) and (d) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, for short, (the I.T.P. Act). A search was conducted at the R.K.S. Ice Cream Parlour. The first accused was arrested. The police started investigation. The police questioned 221 witnesses. There were 25 suspects. The Police filed the final report against 16 of them. Of the 9 suspects left, only 2 were identified by names. The identity of 7 persons could not be established at all. The stand taken by the Investigation Officer was that there was no sufficient material to arraign the two named suspects also as accused. The charges leveled against the accused were as follows: Accused Nos. 1 and 4 committed the offences punishable under Sections 366, 109 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1) and 5(1)(a), (c) and (d) of the I.T.P. Act, Accused 2,3,5 to 10 and 13 to 16 committed the offences punishable under Sections 366, 109 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(1)(a),(c) and (d) of the I.T.P. Act. Accused Nos. 1, 4, 11 and 12 committed the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120B read with section 34 of I.P.C. The other offences alleged against the accused in the
























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top