THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE III J.M.F.C. COURT, MANGALURU DISTRICT, DATED 25.01.2017 IN CR.NO.08/2017 IN C.C. NO.3260/2017, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1), 4, 5, 8 OF THE IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION)ACT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched by the respondent against him in C.C No.3260/2017 (arising out of Crime No.8/2017) for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 4, 5, 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, then pending on the file of JMFC- III Court, Mangaluru, and presently pending before the JMFC (VI Court), Mangaluru.

The respondent on receiving credible information regarding immoral traffic, raided Olive Leaf Ayurvedic Therapy Centre (henceforth referred to as 'the Massage Centre'), situate at Bejai Church Road, Mangaluru, on 25.01.2017 at 03.45 p.m. The Manager of the Massage Centre was apprehended and it came to the knowledge of the raiding team that one Mr. Praveen D’Souza and Mr. George K were also involved in the said immoral trafficking of women and they were taken into custody. The petitioner herein was alleged to be the person who was running the brothel. Based on the material procured at the time of raid, the respondent registered Crime No.8/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 4, 5, 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, 'the ITP Act, 1956'). After drawing relevant mahazars, a charge sheet was filed against the accused Nos.1 to 5 including the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 4, 5, 8 of the ITP Act, 1956. The Trial Court in terms of the order dated 04.10.2017, took cognizance of the said offences and issued summons to accused Nos.1 to 3 and non-bailable warrant to accused No.4/petitioner herein and accused No.5 returnable by the date mentioned therein.

The petitioner has sought to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.3260/2017 in this petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the Massage Centre. He contends that one Mr. Maxin K. Kurian is the license holder of the Massage Centre and therefore, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against as he was not present at the time of raid and was not the person responsible for running the Massage Centre. He, therefore, contends that the impugned prosecution of the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that CW.4 was one of the women in the Massage Centre and she in her statement, stated that it is the petitioner / accused No.4 and accused No.3 who introduced her to accused Nos.1 and 2 and they induced her into prostitution. He, therefore, submits that there is corroborative material at this stage to show the involvement of the petitioner in the offence and hence, this Court may not exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to quash the proceedings.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

It may be that the petitioner was not present at the time of the respondent raiding the Massage Centre. However, it is evident from the statement of CW.4 that it is the petitioner / accused No.4 and accused No.3 who introduced her to accused Nos.1 and 2 and they induced her into prostitution. Section 5 of the ITP Act, 1956 which deals with inducement of a woman into prostitution reads as follows:

"5. Procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution.-(1) Any person who-

(a) procures or attempts to procure a person, whether with or without his consent, for the purpose of prostitution; or

(b) induces a person to go from any place, with the intent that he