Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 532 (MP)

Kanika Rajput v. State of M. P.

2023-04-26

DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL

body2023
ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 11.4.2023 passed by Tenth Additional Session Judge, Gwalior in ST No. 26/2023 whereby charges under sections 3, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and section 370 of IPC has been framed against the petitioners. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 17.10.2022 between 7.30 pm to 11.10 pm police Padav, Gwalior, got a secret information that Ranveer Singh used to take Rs.1,000/- to 2,000/- per customer and by giving the girls allurement of money, indulged them in prostitution. On the aforesaid information, Sub-Inspector Vivek Asthana along with force reached at Mayur hotel, sent a witness and thereafter raided the rooms of the hotel. In room No.202 applicants Neelesh Rathore and Kanika were found in compromising position. From the room objectionable articles were seized. In room No.215 coaccused Rehana, Puja, Priyana, Mauni, Usha Devi were found. Co-accused Sauravbh Khandelwal was found at the counter of the hotel and Ranveer Singh was the House Keeping Manager in the hotel. They were arrested. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter FIR for the aforesaid offences has been registered. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is manifestly illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law, facts and evidence. It is further submitted that "The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956" (for brevity 'the Act') has been enacted for those persons who are organizing sex racket. Section 3 of the Act imposes punishment for maintaining a brothel house or allowing premises to be used as a brothel house, section 5 of the Act deals with the procurement inducement or indicing for a person for the sake of prostitution and section 7 of the Act speaks about carrying prostitution in or in the vicinity of the public places. The provision levied against the applicant do not even meet the basic requirement of any of the offences alleged against the petitioners. As the petitioners were not running a brothel house nor they allow there premises to be used as brothel house. The only allegations against the present petitioners are that they were found in objectionable position in the hotel room. There is no allegation against the present petitioners that they have organized sex racket or they are exploiting the girls. As the petitioners were not running a brothel house nor they allow there premises to be used as brothel house. The only allegations against the present petitioners are that they were found in objectionable position in the hotel room. There is no allegation against the present petitioners that they have organized sex racket or they are exploiting the girls. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was procuring inducing or indicing any person for the sake of prostitution nor it is the case of the prosecution that any person was earning on the premises where prostitution is carried out. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 is a lady and the prosecution with blind eyes has made present petitioner No.1 as an accused in the case. To bolster his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decisions of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Goenka Sajan Kumar v. The State of A.P., reported in 2014 2 ALD(Cri) 264 and Z. Lourdiah Naidu & Another v. State of A.P., reported in 2013 2 ALD(Cri) 393. 4. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the petition and prayed for its dismissal. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners is not liable for punishment under the provisions of sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Act and section 370 of IPC. Consequently, the prosecution of the petitioners is unjust and the case against them is liable to be quashed. 6. Consequently, the Criminal Revision is allowed and all the criminal proceedings pending before the Tenth Additional Session Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 26/2023 is hereby quashed. 7. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court for compliance and necessary action. 8. With the aforesaid, the present Criminal Revision stands disposed of.