Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. SIVAGNANAM, J.
N. Govindaraj – Appellant
Versus
State represented by Inspector of Police, Tirupattur & Another – Respondents
Crl. O.P. No. 2328 of 2021 & Crl. M.P. No. 1289 of 2021
Decided On : 14-09-2023
Immoral Trafficking - Criminal Proceedings - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act r/w.370(2), 370(A)(2) of IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the mandatory requirements under Sections 15 and 16 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956, the role of Special Police Officers, and the procedural irregularities in conducting searches. The court also considered the legal principles established in various judgments, including the distinction between mandatory and directory provisions, and the limitations of the court's interference in criminal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused No.1, challenged the criminal proceedings against him, arguing that the allegations did not attract the offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code. He also raised procedural irregularities and non-compliance with mandatory provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as the manager and owner of the lodge, had committed the offence of Immoral Traffic by recruiting persons for prostitution. It also considered the role of the investigating officer, procedural irregularities, and the legality of the criminal proceedings.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code to the petitioner's actions, compliance with mandatory provisions, and the role of the investigating officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory requirements under Sections 15 and 16 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, the distinction between mandatory and directory provisions, and the limitations of the court's interference in criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments and upholding the legality of the criminal proceedings.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash the complaint in PRC No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirupattur as against the petitioner/accused No.1.)
1. Challenging the criminal proceedings in P.R.C. No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupattur, the present petition has been filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
On 22.09.2013 between 21.30 and 00.30 hours, at Vikram Lodge, A8 being the owner of the lodge knowingly allowed A1, who is the manager and incharge of the said lodge, to run brothel in his lodge. A1 with the assistance and abetment of A2 and A7, recruited Vasantha and Malleswari, sex workers and allowed A5 Mohan and A6 Shankar to have sexual intercourse with sex workers in room numbers 105 and 107 respectively and thereby, permitted the above said lodge to be used for prostitution and that he is living with partial earnings from the said brothel. Hence, case in Crime No. 16/2013, u/s. 3, 6, 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act r/w.370(2), 370(A)(2) of IPC @ 3(1)(b), 3(a)(1), 4, 4(1)(c), 5(1),(a), 6, 7(2)(c) of Immora Traffic (Prevention Act) 1956 and 370(A), (2), 370(3) of IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Govindaraj is A1 in P.R.C.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupattur. The averments in the First Information Report and the statements of all witnesses in the Final Report reveal no specific allegation against the petitioner/A1, which attracts the offences under Sections 3(a)(i), 4 & 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 and Section 370(3) of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had not employed alleged sex workers, nor detained them in the lodge and the statement of LW5 and LW6 clearly reveals that they came to the lodge on their own free volition. The incident is only a case of relationship between two consenting adults and it does not reveal any act of Immoral Trafficking on the part of the petitioner/A1. The mandatory requirements under Sections 15 and 16 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 have not been complied with. Both the respondents 1 and 2 are not Special Police Officers notified under Section 13(1) for the Area by the State Government and do not have any jurisdiction to conduct any raid and register the FIR and file Final Report. The victims LW5 and LW6 have been arrested by the defacto complainant and he has failed to produce them before the Judicial Magistrate immediately, and the victims have not been examined by a Registered Medical Practitioner. He further submitted that the two witnesses, (Revenue Inspectors), who were present at the time of search of the said occurrence, were not respectable inhabitants of the locality and no woman witness was present during the search proceedings and hence, the ratio laid down by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.28535, etc., batch of 2018 (M/s.Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini /vs/ K. Natarajan), dated 02.01.219 and followed in Crl.O.P.No.2715 of 2019 (M.S.Narasimmalu /vs/ State), dated 16.04.2019 and 2019(1) Law Weekly 161 (Govindaraj /vs/ Inspector of Police ) have not been complied with. Hence, violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 15 and 16 of the Immoral Traffic(Prevention) Act 1956 would lead to unsuccessful prosecution and it would only be an abuse of the process of law, resulting in miscarriage of justice. In any event, the proceedings against the petitioner in P.R.C No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirupattur is illegal, against law. Therefore, the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner is not maintainable and liable to be quashed.
4. To support his case, the learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court in (i) Crl.O.P.No.1726 of 2022( Kamrudin & otrs /vs/ Inspector of Police & another) (ii) Cr.L.P.No.14659 of 2011 ( S.Appeal /vs/ Inspector of Police), (iii) Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4414 of 2022( T
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with mandatory provisions under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, the distinction between mandatory and directory p....
The authority of the first respondent to register the FIR under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and the non-vitiating nature of procedural irregularities in conducting the search.
The court emphasized that the power to quash a complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly and as an exception, following the guidelines and parameters laid down by previous judgments.
The court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and the power of quashing should be exercised only in the 'rarest of rare cases'. The c....
The power of quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where no cognizable offense is disclosed in the FIR.
A customer at a brothel cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act without evidence of involvement in procuring prostitution.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
