Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1286 (PNJ)

Gagandeep Singh Aujla v. State of Punjab

2024-10-25

NIDHI GUPTA

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Nidhi Gupta, J.) Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is filed seeking quashing on merits of FIR No.155 dated 06.06.2018 registered under Section 3/4 of immoral Traffic Act Police Station Sadar (now Rama Mandi), Jalandhar; and all other proceedings in furtherance of the registration of FIR; further prayer that directions be issued to the SHO, Police Station Sadar (now Rama Mandi), Jalandhar, to present the challan in the Court in the above-mentioned case within stipulated period. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR in the present case was registered on 06.06.2008 however, although more than 16 years have passed yet challan has not been presented in the Court till date, and charges have not been framed. Learned Counsel relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Madeshwardhari Singh & Another Vs. State of Bihar” Law Finder Doc ID #45656, to submit that in such situation, FIR is liable to be quashed qua the petitioner/accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in any event, at the worst it can only be said that the petitioner was a customer at the raided premises. Admittedly, the petitioner neither owner nor manager of the said premises and therefore, no offence is made out 4. In compliance of the last order dated 12.07.2024, learned State Counsel files status report dated 23.10.2024 filed by way of affidavit of Babandeep Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of the Police (Cantt), Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar, which is taken on record and a copy of the same is supplied to the counsel opposite. 5. Learned state counsel on the instructions Submits that in the present case, upon secret information received, a raid was conducted upon Lilli Resort on GT Road, Jalandhar where the petitioner was found in room No. 235 along with one other girl. It is Submitted that serious allegation have been made against the petitioner, however, it is admitted that challan has not yet filled in the present case. 6. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. 7. I have heard leaned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail. 8. It is Submitted that serious allegation have been made against the petitioner, however, it is admitted that challan has not yet filled in the present case. 6. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. 7. I have heard leaned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail. 8. Brief facts of the case are that present FIR No.155 dated 06.06.2008 u/s 3, 4 of the Immoral Trafficking Act was registered against the petitioner as well as other co-accused wherein it has been alleged that a secret informer told that in Hotel named lilly Resort situated at G.T. Road, Jalandhar, boys and girls have taken room and wrong address have been mentioned. Therefore, the business of brothel is being run in the Hotel i.e. Lilly Resort G.T. Road and if the raid is conducted then boys and girls will be found in room no. 235, 349, and 350. The said rooms have been taken by the boys and girls mentioning wrong addresses, therefore raid should be conducted. On this information, Inspector Sarabjit Rai, the then SHO of P.S Sardar, Jalandhar conducted Raid at Lilly Resort and Room No.235 was searched, and a boy who identified as Gangandeep Singh (present petitioner) and a girl named Sweta was found. 9. In paras 8, 9, and 10 of the above said status reports, it has been stated as follows:- “8. That during the investigation, the manager of lilli Resort submitted an application to the DIG, Jalandhar Range and on the basis of same, investigation of FIR was transferred to SSP Kapurthala, who further appointed Sh. Shukhwinder Singh, SP(D), Kapurthala as investigation officer in FIR. It is pertinent to mention here that Inspector Sarabjit Rai had Previously made a booking at Lilli Resort for friend’s party on 31-03-2008, but the payment had not been made for the booking done on 20-04-2008 and when the manager of lilli resort sent an employee to collect the payment from Inspector Sarabjit Rai, the Inspector felt insulted, leading to the registration of the above-said FIR. Hence, the Investigation officer found the registration of above-said FIR as wrong. 9. That on the basis of finding of the above-said officer, SHO of Police Station Cantt, Jalandhar filed untraced report in the Ld. Hence, the Investigation officer found the registration of above-said FIR as wrong. 9. That on the basis of finding of the above-said officer, SHO of Police Station Cantt, Jalandhar filed untraced report in the Ld. Trial Court on 19.07.2024 (since the jurisdiction of FIR is now lying within the territorial jurisdiction of SHO of Police Station Cantt) and upon summoning the Inspector Sarabjit Rai (Now Superintendent of Police), he did not agree with the untraced report and therefore, the Ld. Trial Court rejected the untraced report vide order dated 31.08.2024 with direction to conduct further investigation. 10. That it is pertinent to mention here that 25.09.2024, the SHO of Police Station Cantt, Jalandhar again filed untraced report in the Ld. Court of JMIC, Jalandhar on 25.09.2024 and the Ld. Trial Court fixed next date of hearing as 19.10.2024 for consideration.” 10. However 19.10.2024, the Ld. Trial Court has further adjourned the case and next date of hearing now is 30.11.2024 fixed for consideration. The petitioner had previously filed a petition before this Court bearing CRM-M-18941-2009 seeking quashing of the present FIR. However, the Same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 03.12.2009 (Annexure P-2) since the cancellation report was Likely to filed considering the fact that Subsequent investigation officer Found the Registration of the FIR as illegal and Wrong. However, even after lapse of 7 more years, the said cancellation report wasn’t filed in the present case; and aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition since neither the cancellation nor the report was filed in the present FIR. 11. It is relevant that the offence u/ss 3 and 4 of the immoral Trafficking Act is not attributed towards the present petitioner since Section 3 of this Act deals with Punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel since petitioner is neither the owner, tenant, lessee, the occupier of the said premises nor the landlord or an agent of the same. Further, even Section 4 of the Act is not attributed to the petitioner since petitioner has no income that is being derived from the prostitution but was merely staying at the Hotel as guest. As such, the offence under Section 3 & 4 is not made out against the Petitioner. 12. Further, even Section 4 of the Act is not attributed to the petitioner since petitioner has no income that is being derived from the prostitution but was merely staying at the Hotel as guest. As such, the offence under Section 3 & 4 is not made out against the Petitioner. 12. It is further pertinent to mention herein that Section 3 of the Act is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for term not less than 2 years but which may extend to 3 year whereas Section 4 of this Act is punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to 2 years. As such, the present FIR has been registered in the year 2008 i.e. dated 06.06.2008, cognizance of the same is hit by the bar of limitation as envisaged under Section 468 Cr.P.C. According to Section 468 (2) (c), the period of limitation is 3 years since the said offences are punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years. Therefore, as per statutory bar of limitation as envisaged by Section 468 (2) (c), the Court of Ld. JMIC is barred from taking cognizance in the present matter. 13. Even as per the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madeshwarshari Singh supra in all criminal prosecutions, the right to speedy public trial is now an inalienable fundamental right of the citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In present case, where the FIR pertains to the years 2008, even after a lapse of 16 years, till date even challan/final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. has not been presented and charges not been framed in the matter. Therefore, in such a situation, present FIR is liable to be quashed qua the petitioner/accused since the petitioner has a fundamental right to have speedy trials. 14. A Similar view taken by this Court in case titled as Mahesh Kumar versus State of Punjab Law Finder DOC ID #45949, wherein the FIR was quashed as the challan was presented after 11.5 long years. This Court considered it to be violation of the Constitutional guarantee of speedy trial as compered under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 15. This Court considered it to be violation of the Constitutional guarantee of speedy trial as compered under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also taken a similar view in a case of titled as Sirajul & Ors versus The State of U.P. & Anr., Law finder DOC ID #689608, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had quashed the complaint stating that even though the cases covered by the statutory bar can be quashed without any further enquiry, but cases not covered by the statutory bar can be quashed as well on the grounds of violation of right of speedy trial which has been held to part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India having regard to the extent of delay, person responsible for delay and other attending circumstances. 16. In view of the above uncontroverted factual and legal position, continuance of the present FIR would be a violation of the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of India. Admittedly, untraced report has been filed twice in the present case. 16 years have passed the commission of the alleged offence of by the petitioner. It is a clear violation of the Constitution guarantee of speedy trial as compered under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 17. In view of the above, present petition is allowed; and FIR No.155 dated 06.06.2018 registered under Section 3/4 of immoral Traffic Act at Police Station Sardar(now Rama mandi), Jalandhar; and all other proceedings in furtherance of registration of the said FIR, are quashed qua the petitioner. 18. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.