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

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 26290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
............ – Appellant
Versus
............ – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CRM-M-69520-2025 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

(124) CRM-M-69520-2025

Date of Decision: 29.1.2026

Mohit @ Rinku ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing of FIR No. 330

dated 27.10.2025, under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of Immoral Traffic

(Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956’), and Sections 143/61(2)

of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala, and all

other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.10.2025, the police

party received a secret information regarding the running of a prostitution

racket at The Golden Era Saloon Therapy, under the guise of spa business.

Subsequently, a raid was conducted at the said spa centre concerned, where

the petitioner was allegedly found in one of the cabins along with a girl in an

objectionable state.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the

petitioner was the customer at the spa centre concerned for hair cutting, and

he was neither the owner, nor was in control of the spa centre concerned.

Gurpreet Singh

2026.02.05 16:09

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

##PAGE2##

CRM-M-69520-2025 -2-

However, the petitioner was arrested without any justified reason and

without following proper procedure by the investigating agency. It is also

submitted that neither any specific role has been assigned to the petitioner,

nor any independent witness was joined by the investigating agency.

Moreover, there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner was

indulged in trafficking the women, who were allegedly sexually exploited.

Furthermore, the petitioner was not found abusing or exploiting any of the

girls employed/working in the spa centre. Thus, no case under the alleged

offences, is made out against the present petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed

that the present FIR against the petitioner be quashed.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Sr. DAG, Haryana accepts notice on

behalf of the respondent-State.

6. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. She states that specific allegations have been

levelled against the petitioner. Moreover, recoveries of incriminating

material was effected from the premises concerned. It is also submitted that

after completion of investigation, challan was presented before the learned

Court concerned on 02.1.2026.

7. Heard the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the

parties and perused record with their able assistance.

8. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to first advert to

settled law with respect to the parameters governing the exercise of

jurisdiction of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a

celebrated judgment cited as State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SUPP

(1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed different categories

Gurpreet Singh

2026.02.05 16:09

I attest to the accuracy oanfd cases wherein, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

##PAGE3##

CRM-M-69520-2025 -3-

either to prevent abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of

justice, while also observing that it might not be possible to lay down an

exhaustive list or myriad kind of cases where such powers should be

exercised. The following principles have been culled out:-

“102 (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report

or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence

or make out a case against the accused;

(2)Where the allegations in the First Information Report and

other materials, if any, accompanying t

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