Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 568 (AP)

Shaik Asha Rani v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-09-07

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. - The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent in not allowing her to use the premises i.e., Flat No.212, Lansum Greens Apartment, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam City though the same was not seized as per the seizure report filed in to the Court in Crime No.53 of 2020 as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to 3rd respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid property. 2. The petitioner's case is thus. The petitioner was falsely implicated in the Crime No.53 of 2020 by the 3rd respondent for the offences u/Secs.370(A)(2) of IPC and Secs.3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(a) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act" ) on the allegation that the petitioner has been running a brothel house in Flat No.212, Lansum Greens Apartment, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam City and thus sexually exploiting the victim girls and booked case against her on 03.03.2020. The petitioner was arrested in the above case and she was enlarged on bail vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.19 of 2020 dated 29.04.2020 by the learned VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of Offences against Women, Visakhapatnam. During the course of investigation, the Prosecution Agency seized the cash of Rs.12,000/- and Blue colour Vivo Company Android Smart Mobile Phone from the petitioner and some other articles and things from the other accused under the cover of Panchanama dated 03.03.2020. Thereafter, the Police submitted Form-60 duly mentioning about the seized articles from the accused. In the said Form-60 nothing is mentioned about the Flat No.212. The petitioner has been residing in the said premises as lessee for the last two years. Though the prosecuting agency did not seize the premises as per Form-60 submitted to the Court, however, the 3rd respondent has not been permitting the petitioner to enter the said premises and reside therein which is unjust and illegal. The petitioner filed an application dated 22.06.2020 bringing to the notice of the Trial Court and the said petition was returned on the observation that there was no mention about the seizure of Flat No.212 in the Form-60. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned Asst. The petitioner filed an application dated 22.06.2020 bringing to the notice of the Trial Court and the said petition was returned on the observation that there was no mention about the seizure of Flat No.212 in the Form-60. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned Asst. Government Pleader for Home, on instructions submitted that the Investigating Officer in terms of Section 18 of the Act, made a requisition to the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam for closure of the subject premises and the proceedings are pending before the said authority. In view of his submission, this Court on 01.09.2020 suo motu added the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam as 4th respondent. 4. Heard. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that a false case is foisted against the petitioner in Crime No.53 of 2020 and the petitioner is defending the same. While so, the Police without showing the Flat No.212 in Form-60, as seized, however obstructing the petitioner from residing therein. The petitioner being a lady, herself and her family members are suffering a lot due to the unjust acts of the 3rd respondent and his staff. Learned counsel would submit that no notice was so far received from the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam though the Investigating Officer said to have submitted a requisition for seizure of the house. Learned counsel prayed that 4th respondent may be directed to issue a notice to the petitioner before passing any order in terms of Section 18 of the Act. 5. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner. Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, in terms deals with the closure of brothel and eviction of offenders from the premises. 5. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner. Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, in terms deals with the closure of brothel and eviction of offenders from the premises. It says that a Magistrate (District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate as per the Schedule) may on receipt of information from the Police or otherwise, that any house, room, place or any portion thereof within a distance of two hundred meters of any public place referred to in Section 7(1) of the Act, is being run or used as a brothel by any person or is being used by prostitutes for carrying on their trade, issue notice on the owner, lessor or landlord of such house, room, place or portion or agent of the owner, lessor or landlord or on the tenant, lessee, occupier of, or any other person incharge of such house, room, place, or portion, to show cause within seven days of the receipt of the notice why the same should not be attached for improper user thereof and after hearing the person concerned, may pass an order in terms of the aforesaid section. Therefore, a Magistrate is obligated to issue show cause notice to the owner, occupier or the lessor of the premises sought to be attached by the Investigating Officer and upon hearing such person he shall pass the orders. 6. In that view, this writ petition is disposed and the 4th respondent is directed to follow the mandatory procedure laid under Section 18 of the Act and issue show cause notice to the petitioner to call for her objections, if any and upon affording a personal hearing to the petitioner and the Prosecution, pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law. The above exercise shall be completed within one (1) month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then, the petitioner shall be permitted to reside in the subject premises. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.