1. This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by accused Nos 1 to 4 in C.C. No. 1621/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the ‘Code’).

2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.1621/2009, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada, alleging offences under Section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevision) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The case of the prosecution was that on 26.10.2009 at 2.45 p.m., accused numbers 1& 4 and accused 2 & 3 were found engaged in sexual activities in a rented house with No. VP VII/248 and thereby, they have committed the above said offence. None of the ingredients of the above sections have been established in this case. Further the investigation in this case was not conducted by the authorised officer, but by Sub Inspector of Police, which is also illegal. So under the circumstances, there is no scope for any conviction in this case and this is a fit case where the power under Section 482 of the ‘Code’ has to be invoked to quash the proceedings. So the petitioners filed this application, seeking the following relief:

“For these and other reasons to be urged at the time of hearing, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records leading to Annexure-B final report in C.C. No.1621/2009 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada and quash all further prosecution proceedings of petitioners on the basis of said final report.”

3. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the detection itself was not done by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kattakada, but some other officer in charge of that officer. Further the investigation in this case was conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, who is not the authorised officer to conduct the investigation. So, the entire procedure adopted is illegal and as such, the proceedings is liable to be quashed. He has also submitted that, there is no case for the prosecution that, the persons arrested were prostitutes engaged in prostitution and they have been secured for this purpose by the other accused persons.

4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, it is not a case to be quashed at this stage and it can be decided only on the basis of evidence.

5. The case of the prosecution was that, on 26.10.2009, accused Nos. 1 and 4 were found engaged in sexual intercourse with accused Nos.2 and 3 in a rented house with No. VP VII/248 and the detection was done by the CW10, who was the Circle Inspector of Police Aryanadu Police Station, but in charge of Kattakada Circle, within whose jurisdiction the alleged incident happened and the investigation was conducted by CW11, who is the Sub Inspector of Police and it was he who laid Annexure-B final report. Except the fact that these persons were engaged in sexual intercourse in a rented building, there is no other material collected by the investigating agency to prove that accused Nos. 3 and 4 were really engaged in prostitution and they were secured by accused Nos.1 and 2 for the purpose of engaging accused Nos. 3 and 4 for prostitution.

6. Section 3, 4, 5, 7, 13 and 14 of the Act reads as follows:

Section 3 reads as:

3. Punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel.

(1) Any person who keeps or manages, or acts or assists in the keeping or management of, a brothel shall be punishable on first conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.

(2) Any person w