Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 2401
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Subhash Chandra, S/o Shri Vakilchand and Anr. – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2281 of 2013
Decided On : 19-11-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Arora.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, DyGA Mr. Ravindra Singh Bhati.
Charges under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act must be supported by sufficient evidence, and without the essential allegations, a petitioner cannot be forced to trial.
Headnote:(A) Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Sections 3, 4, and 8 - Challenge to framing of charges - The court ruled that the essential ingredients to constitute charges under Sections 3 and 8 were not present, affirming only the charge under Section 4 against the petitioner, who was not alleged to have profited from prostitution. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - The power under this section permits quashing of orders when charges lack sufficient grounding. (Paras 1 and 2)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order framing charges under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, with a court revising the decision to affirm only one charge under Section 4 due to lack of evidence on charges under Sections 3 and 8.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no substantial evidence indicating the petitioner lived on prostitution earnings, thereby exonerating him from charges.
Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the petitioner could be charged under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act given the lack of sufficient evidence to establish necessary elements of the charge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without the essential allegations to support a charge under Sections 3 and 8, the petitioner should not be subjected to trial, emphasizing that charges must have adequate grounding.
Result: The criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed, and the orders of the lower courts were quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to charge under immoral traffic act. (Para 1) |
| 2. insufficient evidence for charges under act. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. petition allowed; charges quashed. (Para 4 , 5) |
Order :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. By way of filing the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 4 82 of the CrPC, challenge is made to the order dated 30.03.2011, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Metrocity Jodhpur directed to frame the charges against the petitioner under Section 3 , 4 and 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. A revision was preferred bearing Criminal Revision No.35/2011, wherein the learned Court of revision held that sufficient material was not there to charge the petitioner for the offence under Section 3 and 8 of the Act of 1956. However, she affirmed the charge under Section 4 of the Act of 1956 to proceed against the petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on the record.
3. Section 4 of the Act of 1956 makes a provision for punishment to a person living on the earnings of prostitution and as per which, any person over the age of 18 years, if knowingly lives, wholly or in part, on the earnings of the prostitution, he shall be punished. Even if the allegations as levelled in the complaint and the other material are taken on its face value or even if the evidence is not rebutted, nowhere it is alleged that the petitioner was the person, who was living on the earnings of prostitution. Since the ingredients, which are essential to constitute the charge are not available, therefore, he cannot be forced to face the rigour of trial.
4. As a consequence of the above discussions, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 30.03.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Metrocity Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.10/2011 as well as the order dated 10.07.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Revision No.35/2011 are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is exonerated from the charge.
5. The stay petition is disposed of.
