IMPORTANT POINT
The requirement for a special police officer empowered under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act to investigate offenses and the seriousness of the accusation against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

1. On 18.10.2021, a complaint was lodged by one Women Police Sub-Inspector WP/SI K.R. Marak before the Officer-in-Charge, Sadar Police Station, Shillong to the effect that on the same day, at about 6:30 pm two police personnel in plain clothes UBC 2706 M.D. Kharkongor and UBC 2736 Y. Raliang while performing their duties at Jail Road and Police Bazar area spotted one girl and two males talking near Vishal Mega Mart after which one of them went with the girl to the compound behind J.K. International Hotel which is suspected to be an area where brothels and places for soliciting sex workers for prostitution takes place. The said police personnel then followed the girl and her companion and saw them entered a room. Later, a search was conducted and the said girl was found to be in the company of Rami Sinha and Sunil Kr. Singha.

2. Accordingly, on receipt of the said complaint, a case was registered being Shillong Sadar P.S. Case No 240 (10) 2021 under Sections 3(2)(a)(b)/4(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and initially four persons were arrested in connection with the said case, including the petitioner herein.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court with this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking exercise of the inherent power to set aside the FIR dated 18.10.2021 and the subsequent proceedings in Shillong Sadar P.S. Case No. 240 (10) 2021 under Sections 3(2)(a)(b)/4(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

4. Mr. K.Ch. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the process following the investigation of the case registered under the abovementioned sections of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act has totally exposed the irregular approach of the Investigator, inasmuch as, proper procedure has not been followed since the case was not taken up for investigation by a Special Police Officer specifically empowered for that purpose under the Act.

5. It is also submitted that there is nothing to show that the place which belonged to the petitioner is a brothel. In fact, the case relates to only a solitary incident allegedly involving a minor girl who was never produced before the Magistrate as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. The learned counsel has stressed that evidence would show that no offence under Section 3(2)(a)(b)/4(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 was committed by the petitioner even though he is the owner of the place, he is residing behind the said building and there was a caretaker who is looking after the place. The building was not even sealed and as such, if a Special Police Officer who is trained in the implementation of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act has conducted the investigation, the petitioner would not have been implicated in the case nor arrested thereof.

7. In support of his case, the learned counsel has cited the case of Delhi Administration v. Ram Singh: AIR 1962 SC 63 para 24 and also the case of Ali Ahammed v. State of Kerala: Crl. MC No. 2539 of 2014, Order dated 26.11.2020.

8. Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned AAG responding on behalf of the State respondent has submitted that a perusal of the FIR would reveal that specific information have been given indicating that the building of the petitioner herein have been used as a brothel since two persons were caught red handed with a young girl in one of the room of the building. Apart from that, further search of the place resulted in seizure of a number of used condoms which can only be concluded that the building was used for immoral activities.

9. As to the objection that the investigation was not carried out by a police officer duly authorized under the Act, the learned AAG has submitted that a judgment in this regard is cited wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with this issue in the case of R.A.H. Siguran v. Shankare Gowda Alias Shankara & Anr: (2017) 16 SCC 126 particularly para 10.

10. It is also submitted that subsequently, the Government has issue