SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1748

PATNA HIGH COURT
Indu Devi
Cr. WJC-1674/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1674 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-301 Year-2025 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR TOWN District-

Muzaffarpur ======================================================

Indu Devi Wife of Basant Kumar Singh, Resident of Mohalla - Nayatola, P.O.- Head Office Muzaffarpur, P.S.- Kaji Mohammadpur, District –

Muzaffarpur - 842001, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. Bihar

3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur (East), Dist.- Muzaffarpur.

Bihar

4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur. Bihar

5. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer-Town, District - Muzaffarpur. Bihar

6. The SHO (Station House Officer), Nagar Thana Muzaffarpur, Dist.-

Muzaffarpur. Bihar ... ... Respondents ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gyanendra Kr. Shukla, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.A.G.05 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

3 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order contained in Letter No. 1943 dated 12.06.2025, issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur (East), whereby the premises of Hotel Central Park, situated at Aghoria Bazar, Muzaffarpur, was sealed on 13.06.2025 pursuant to a notice erroneously dated 13.06.2024 instead of the correct date of 13.06.2025, without issuance of any show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner’s husband, who is the landlord of the said premises, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory provisions of Section 18(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)

Act, 1956.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of certiorary or mandamus, commanding the respondent authorities to forthwith delete the name of the petitioner’s husband from the array of the accused persons in Nagar Thana, Muzaffarpur P.S. Case No. 301 of 2025, dated 10.6.2025, registered under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, as he has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offence and has been falsely and arbitrarily implicated without any cogent evidence in support thereof.

(iii) For issuance of any appropriate writ(s), order(s), or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the relief no. 2 is concerned, in supervision note, the supervising authority has also found that there is no involvement of the husband of the petitioner in the whole occurrence and therefore, he does not want to press relief sought as relief no. 2.

4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as it appears from the record is that finding the premises, a hotel owned by the husband of the petitioner, being used in immoral trafficking, the said premises, namely Hotel Central Park, was sealed by the police in connection with Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 301 of 2025 registered under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sealing has been made in contravention to the provisions of Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The Section 18 of the said Act provides furnishing a show cause notice to the owner / landlord / lessor or agent, whose house, room, place of question was being run or used as brothel or by prostitutes for carrying out their trade. And the noticee is supposed to reply to this show cause within seven days. No such notice has been given to the husband of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel further submits that moreover, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top