Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Megh) 56

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. Diengdoh, J.
Sunil Kumar Singha - Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. Petn. Nos. 7 & 8 of 2022
Decided On : 22-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. P.Yobin, Advocate, for the Petitioner/Appellant in Crl. Petn. No. 7 of 2022; Mr. H. Kharmih, Addl. P. P, for the Respondent in Crl. Petn. No. 7 of 2022; Mr. P.Yobin, Advocate, for the Petitioner/Appellant in Crl. Petn. No. 8 of 2022; Mr. H. Abraham, GA, for the Respondent in Crl. Petn. No. 8 of 2022

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations in the FIR must disclose an offence, and the court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside and quash proceedings if no offence is made out.

Headnote:
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act - Allegations of Prostitution - Section 3(2)(a)(b)/4(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - The court discussed the interpretation of the provisions of Section 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and their applicability to the accused. The court also considered the relevance of the POCSO Act in the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were implicated in a case under Sections 3(2)(a)(b)/4(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 based on allegations of being found in the company of a girl for the purpose of prostitution. The petitioners approached the Court to quash the complaint and the related case.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the allegations in the FIR did not disclose any offence committed by the petitioners. The Court concluded that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised to set aside and quash the FIR and related proceedings against the petitioners.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners could make out a case for quashing the FIR and proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and considered relevant case law to determine the applicability of the Act to the petitioners. The Court also emphasized that the allegations did not disclose any offence against the petitioners.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions, set aside and quashed the FIR and related proceedings against the petitioners under Section 3(2)(a)(b)/4(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The investigation and proceedings against the other accused would continue.

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, 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, Jail Road which is suspected to be an area where brothel and places for soliciting sex workers for prostitution takes place. The said police personnel then followed the girl and her companions 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 two petitioners herein. Later, another person was also arrested in this case. The girl, it appears is a minor. The stage of the case is under investigation.

3. Being aggrieved on account of being implicated in the said case, the petitioners herein have approached this Court with separate petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying before this Court to exercise its inherent power to quash the said complaint dated 18.10.2021 and the related Shillong Sadar P.S. Case No. 240(10) 2021.

4. Since the subject matter in the two petitions are identical inasmuch as the cause of action is the said complaint dated 18.10.2021(supra), this Court deems it fit and proper to take up the two petitions and to pass a common order herein.

5. Heard Mr. P. Yobin learned counsel for the petitioners who has submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in the above mentioned police case on the allegation that they have been found to be in the company of a girl for the purpose of prostitution which has therefore, attracted the provisions of Section 3(2)(a)(b) as well as Section 4(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

6. Mr. Yobin has also submitted that being found in the company of a girl is not an offence and even if assuming but not admitting that the allegation of being involved in prostitution is well founded, at best, the petitioners could be treated only as customers. The offences under Section 3(2)(a)(b) as well as Section 4(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act cannot be attracted or attributed to them.

7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has cited the case of Pravin Rana v. State of Karnataka: 2019 SCC Online Kar 3067 and also the case of Dilip Jana v. State of West Bengal: 2009 SCC Online Cal 1569 where, in similarly situated cases as the instant case, the Hon'ble High Court reading into the provisions of Section 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, vis-a-vis the fact that the accused therein was found to be a customer of prostitution and in the case of Dilip Jana (supra), where the accused was caught red-handed by the police in the presence of independent witnesses from a hotel, while he was carrying on prostitution, the Court found that no offence under Section 3, 4, 5 & 6 has been made out against the petitioner therein.

8. It is submitted that the FIR as far as the petitioners are concerned, be set aside and quashed as the allegations in the FIR does not disclose any offence committed by the petitioners herein.

9. Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl. P. P has submitted that the case against the petitioners have been registered under clause (a) of sub-section 2 of Section 3 and sub-section 1 of Section 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

10. The petitioners came to Shillong for the purpose of a recruitment rally in the Assam Rifles and they stayed at Sneha Kutir, Jail Road behind J.K. International Hotel, Ja