Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1525 (PAT)

Sunil Kumar Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2008-10-01

SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the F.I.R. of Vaishaii Town P.S. Case No. 259/07 under Sections 4(2)(A)(B), 6(B), 5, 7, 7(1)(A) and 7(2) of Immoral Traffic Act and its institution on the ground that the informant was not competent to institute the case under the provisions of Suppression of immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and the investigation of the same by Sub-Inspector of Police is bad in law and the local police was not competent to conduct the raid under Section 13 of the aforesaid Act. 3. The facts of the case, in short, is that one Malti Kumari, S.I. of Police, conducted a raid in one of the local hotels of Hajipur and found the petitioner in compromising position with another lady who was also an employee of Bihar Cooperative Department. In course of raid some other persons were also found in compromising position in other rooms of the said Hotel. As such Malti Kumari made a written report to the Officer-in-Charge, Town Police Station, Vaishaii at Hajipur giving rise to Town P.S. Case No. 259/07 under the various provisions of Section 13 of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 13 of the Act only a special police officer is entitled to institute or investigate the case under the Act. He submits that the aforesaid case was lodged by Malti Kumari and the investigation of the same not by a special police officer, but a local police is bad in law. 5. The learned counsel for the State has filed an affidavit annexing a copy of the Notification dated 27.11.1997 issued by Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, which authorizes all officers in rank of S.P., D.S.P. and Inspector of Police passed in Crime Investigation Department as duly authorized to investigate a case relating to Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956.. It is stated that the case was instituted by an officer of rank of Inspector of Police and it is also being investigated by an officer of the rank of Inspector of Police. 6. It is stated that the case was instituted by an officer of rank of Inspector of Police and it is also being investigated by an officer of the rank of Inspector of Police. 6. I find that Annexure-1 has been instituted by an officer of rank, Inspector of Police of Town P.S. Hajipur, who would be deemed to be a Special Police Officer by virtue of notification contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It further appears from paragraph 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit that the aforesaid case has been transferred for investigation to the Inspector Town, P.S. Hajipur as contained in Annexure-A, who would be also one of the Special Officer as envisaged in Section 13 of the 1956 Act. In view of such factual aspects, I find that both the institution of the case and its investigation do not suffer for want of jurisdiction as provided for in Section 13 of the 1956 Act. 7. Under the above circumstances, this writ application is dismissed.