The main legal point established in the judgment is that the charge under Section 370 of IPC was erroneously framed against the accused/petitioner as she was considered an exploited person under the section.

ORDER

1. Accused/Petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 3.12.2018, passed in Session Trial No.14/2018, by II Addl. Sessions Judge, Niwari, District Tikamgarh, whereby learned ASJ framed the charge against the accused/petitioner under Section 370 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for short).

2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 2.6.2017, Sub Divisional Officer (P) Prithvipur, received information that the act of prostitution is going on in the Residency Hotel at Prithvipur. Thereafter, he reached on the spot with other police officials. He found that accused/petitioner was involved in prostitution activities with another co-accused. Thereafter, he seized the amount and other articles from the accused/petitioner and other co-accused. He found that accused/petitioner and other co-accused are involved in prostitution. Accused/petitioner and other co-accused were arrested, FIR was lodged under Section 370 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections, 3, 4, 5, 6 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused/petitioner under Section 370 read with Section 34 of IPC. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused/petitioner under Section 370(2) of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that learned Court below framed the charge under Section 370(2) of IPC is contrary to law. Learned Court below has committed gross error of law in framing charge against the accused/petitioner. As per the prosecution story, accused/petitioner was found to be involved in commission of offence and she was in a room of hotel with two other co-accused persons, namely, Govind and Gyan Chand. Accused/petitioner was caught in a suspicion condition while doing prostitution. Thus, as per the prosecution case itself present accused/petitioner was not involved in trafficking of person rather she has been subjected to the trafficking for the purpose enshrined under Section 370(1) of IPC. In such circumstance, no charge can be framed against the accused/petitioner under Section 370(2) of IPC. So, learned Court below committed a gross error of law in framing charge against the present accused/petitioner. So, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and discharging of accused/ petitioner from the charge under Section 370(2) of IPC.

4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, therefore, the petition may be dismissed. He also submits that learned trial Court must also frame the charge against the accused/petitioners under Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956.

5. Before embarking on the facts of the case, it would be necessary to consider the legal aspects first. Since the petitioners have challenged the charge framed by the trial Court, by way of filing this revision petition, therefore, I would prefer to deal with the provision of Section 227 of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the same reads as under:-

"227. Discharge. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."

6. If the Court finds that sufficient material is available to connect the accused with the offence, then Section 228 of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, comes into role, provision is also quoted as under:

"228. Framing of charge. (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which-

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the cas