Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 529
Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, J.
Priyanka (Ku.) v. State of M.P.
Criminal Revision No. 789 of 2019 (J); Decided on 20.5.2020
Satyam Agrawal for applicant; Gulab Singh, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Headnote:
Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 370 r/w S. 34 -- Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 -- Ss. 3, 4, 5 and 6 -- Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 227 and 228 -- criminal revision to set aside charge framed against accused/petitioner under section 370, IPC -- alleged that raid conducted in hotel and accused/petitioner along with two co-accused found to be involved in commission of offence -- accused is lady -- alleged that she was involved in prostitution -- she was herself exploited person as per section 370, IPC -- charge erroneously framed against her -- impugned order framing charge set aside -- prosecution is free to submit petition before trial Court regarding allegation against accused/petitioner under the Act, 1956. 2017 SCC Online Guj. 446 relied on. AIR 1990 SC 1962, AIR 1979 SC 366, (2005) 1 SCC 568 and 2000 (1) JLJ 142 referred to. [Paras 12 to 14]
naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 370 lgifBr /kkjk 34 & vuSfrd O;kikj ¼fuOkkj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1956 & /kkjk 3] 4] 5 rFkk 6 & naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 227 rFkk 228 & HkkŒnaŒlaŒ dh /kkjk 370 ds v/khu vfHk;qDr@;kph ds fo#) fojfpr vkjksi vikLr djkus ds fy, nkafMd iqujh{k.k & vfHkdfFkr fd gksVy esa Nkik ekjk x;k rFkk vfHk;qDr@;kph ds lkFk nks lg&vfHkqDr vijk/k djus esa varoZfyr ik, x, & vfHk;qDr efgyk gS & vfHkdfFkr fd og os';ko`fÙk esa varoZfyr Fkh & HkkŒnaŒlaŒ dh /kkjk 370 ds vuqlkj og Lo;a 'kksf"kr O;fDr gS & mlds fo#) vkjksi xyrh ls fojfpr & vkjksi fojfpr djus dk vk{ksfir vkns'k vikLr & vfèkfu;e] 1956 ds v/khu vfHk;qDr@;kph ds fo#) vfHkdFku ds lacaèk esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k ;kfpdk ÁLrqr djus ds fy, vfHk;kstu Lora=A 2017 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu xqtjkr 446 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1990 ,l lh 1962] , vkb vkj 1979 ,l lh 366] ¼2005½ 1 ,l lh lh 568 rFkk 2000 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 142 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 12 ls 14½
ORDER
1. Accused/petitioner has filed this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC 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 c
