The absence of sufficient allegations to support charges under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act dictates the quashing of proceedings.

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.124 of 2024, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 08.02.2024, A1 had taken the victims to the house of A2 for prostitution and thereby, they committed the offence under Sections 3(1) , 3(2)(a) , 4(1) , 5(1)(a) and 6(1) (a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act , 1956 and Section 4(1)(a) of TN Prohibition Act . Therefore, the respondent has registered the FIR in Crime No.24 of 2024 for the above said offences committed by the petitioner and another. Now, the second accused/petitioner, has challenged the pending proceedings.

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has foisted a false case against the petitioner and another. No offence is made out against the petitioner. In fact, there was no any complaint from the alleged victims. The defacto complainant herself has registered the FIR by violating the Section 15 of the Immoral Traffic Act. Even as per the prosecution, the petitioner was found in his guest house with two ladies for prostitution and also had four bottles of liquor and 15 bottles of beer. Therefore, registered the present FIR. In fact, on 08.02.2024, while the petitioner returned to his guest house, he asked the first accused to arrange house maids to clean the guest house, thereby, they entered into the guest house. At that time, the respondent police came there and foisted the false case and no any offences made out against the petitioner. In order to attract the provisions under Sections 3(1) , 3(2)(a) , 4(1) , 5(1)(a) and 6(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act , 1956, there are no any allegations and no any materials even as per the FIR and the final report filed by the respondent. Therefore, the pending proceedings are liable to be quashed.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner along with A1 engaged in prostitution and thereby, they went to the place of occurrence and found the accused with two ladies and thereby, they enquired the victims they stated about the prostitution. Therefore, they registered the present FIR and thereafter, the respondent conducted investigation and filed final report and the same was taken cognizance by the trial Court in C.C.No.124 of 2024. As per the final report, there are prima facie materials available as against the petitioner. Therefore, it is a matter for trial and this petition is liable to be dismissed.

5.Heard both sides and perused the records.

6.The respondent registered case against the petitioner in Crime No.24 of 2024, for the offence under Sections 3(1) , 3(2)(a) , 4(1) , 5(1)(a) and 6(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act , 1956 and Section 4(1) (a) of TN Prohibition Act and thereafter, the respondent conducted investigation and filed final report and the same was taken cognizance by the trial Court in C.C.No.124 of 2024 and the same is pending. This petitioner has been arrayed as A2 and the allegation against the petitioner is that he was found with two ladies in the guest house along with liquor bottles. Therefore, he has been charged for the above said offences. There are no allegations that the petitioner keeps or manages or acts or assists in keeping or management of a brothel. As far as the offence under Section 3(2)(a) of is concerned, the petitioner is not a tenant, lessee, occupier or person in charge of any premises, uses or knowingly allows any person to use, such premises for brothel. To attract the provision under Section 4(1) of , the petitioner has no any ingredient to show that the petitioner being aged over 18 years, knowingly lives, wholly or in part, on the earnings of the prostitution of any other person. As far as the off