At the charge framing stage, the court must determine if the prosecution's material establishes a prima facie case, without considering the defence's merits.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 4.6.2024, passed by learned Special Judge (Family Court), Shimla (learned Trial Court), vide which the learned Trial Court ordered the framing of charges against the petitioner (accused before learned Trial Court) for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 370 and 120-B of the Indian penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Section 370 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act. It was asserted that the police party was on patrolling duty on 12.9.2019 when they received secret information that Virender Singh was bringing girls from Punjab. He was pushing them into immoral trafficking. He paid them a few rupees and earned lakhs of rupees. The police asked Mohit and Mukesh Rolta to become decoy customers who called Virender Singh. Virender Singh sent the photographs of many girls and asked them to select any of them. They selected the photographs. Virender Singh asked for Rs.1200. He also asked them to send Rs.500/- as an advance to his account. Rs.1000/- was transferred to his account. Room Nos. 301 and 302 were booked in Pine View Cottage Restaurant, Dhalli Bypass Road. Virender Singh demanded Rs.2,000/- as an advance before handing over the girls. Virender Singh brought two girls and demanded Rs.2,000/-. Virender Singh accepted the money, and the police apprehended him with the girls. The girls revealed during the interrogation that Virender Singh persuaded them to work as sex workers. He paid some money to them and retained the rest of the money. Police arrested Virender Singh, who revealed during the inquiry that he had asked Andy to prepare a website for him. The police searched for Andy and found that the money was transferred to the account of Vikram (present petitioner) from the account of Virender Singh. The petitioner revealed during the investigation that he had prepared the website as per the directions of Virender Singh. The police seized the mobile phone and Laptop of the petitioner. The police filed a charge sheet before the Court after the completion of the investigation.

3. Learned Trial Court framed charges against the petitioner and the co-accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 370 and 120-B of IPC and Section 4 of the Immoral Trafficking Act, 1956.

4. Being aggrieved by the order framing charges, the petitioner has filed the present petition, asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in framing charges against the petitioner for the commission of an offence under Section 370 of the IPC. The police did not state anything in the charge sheet submitted by them that the petitioner was involved in trafficking. The petitioner was not in Shimla on 13.9.2019. He did not know the victims or the main accused, Virender Singh. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court framing the charges be set aside.

5. I have heard Mr. Harsh Sharol, vice Mr. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

6. Mr. Harsh Sharol, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in framing charges against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 370 of the IPC. The police did not assert anything in the report submitted by them that the petitioner had recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received any person. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had prepared a Website as per the directions of Virender S