Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 615 (PAT)

Kishan Kumar Soni v. State of Bihar

2012-04-12

RAKESH KUMAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Maya Nand Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2.The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 19.6.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hajipur in Hajipur Town P.S. Case No.471 of 2007 registered for the offence under Sections 4(2)(A)(B)/6(B)/5/7(D)/7(1)A/7(2)C of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,1956. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his discharge. 3. Short fact of the case is that while petitioner was lodged in prisoners ward in Sadar Hospital, Hajipur, a raid was conducted and one lady namely Rina Devi indulged in prostitution was arrested. During investigation, involvement of the petitioner and other accused persons transpired and thereafter, police submitted charge sheet. On 18.3.2009, after perusing the materials available in the case diary, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 4(2)(A)(B)/6(B)/5/7(D)/7(1)(A)/7(2)C of the Act. At the stage of charge, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge and the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, has rejected the same. 4. Shri Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order, has argued that in any event material collected during the investigation can construe that petitioner was a customer and as such he may not be prosecuted for the offences under the Act. He has specifically referred to the provisions under which cognizance order was passed. He submits that non of the provisions are applicable so far as petitioner is concerned. Alternatively, it was argued that the fact remains that petitioner was in judicial custody and lodged in prisoners ward and as such without impleading official of the prisoner ward, the prosecution of the petitioner was bad in law. On aforesaid ground, it has been prayed to set aside the impugned order. 5. Dr. Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while refuting the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the submission regarding non impleading other accused persons is contrary to the record of the case. By referring to case diary, he submits that a supplementary charge sheet was submitted wherein Havildar of the concerned ward was charge sheeted as one of the accused in the case. By referring to case diary, he submits that a supplementary charge sheet was submitted wherein Havildar of the concerned ward was charge sheeted as one of the accused in the case. He further submits that Section 4(2)(B) of the Act specifically prescribes for prosecution of such persons, who abates or aids in such offences. Besides this, he submits that Section 5(B) of the Act and other provisions of the Act also attracts prosecution of the petitioner. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that during investigation, the prostitute who was arrested by the police, initially made statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which she disclosed that the petitioner had called her for indulging in prostitution for which Rs.500/- was to be paid. She was subsequently produced before the learned Magistrate and her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which also she reiterated, her stand, which was taken in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She further disclosed that this petitioner also had intercourse with her. She further disclosed that due to paucity of money, she was indulged in prostitution. 7. After going through the materials available on record as well as specifically under Section 4(2)(B) of the Act, the court is of the opinion that submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that provisions are not applicable in respect of petitioner is simply misconceived. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The petition stands dismissed. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the case is of the year 2007, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously so that the case may come to its logical end without un-necessary delay.