ORDER : Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J. [PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned First Respondent Report in Cr.No.34 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 3(1), 3(2)(a), 4(1), 5(1)(a) and 6(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, dated 06.05.2023 and to quash the same as illegal.] The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is arrayed as A4 in Cr.No.34 of 2023 on the file of the first Respondent Police. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that there is no specific overt act had been attributed on the Petitioner. Therefore, the registration of the case for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1), 3(2) (a), 4(1), 5(1)(a) and 6(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, is without any basis and therefore, he seeks to quash the same. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also relied on the order of this Court R. Shine vs. The Inspector of Police, Nithiravilai Police Station and another in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14232 of 2022, dated 25.11.2022. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further relied upon the Ruling of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl.Petition No.4161 of 2014, in Goenka Sajan Kumar vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein, it has been held as follows : "4. Section 3 of the Act imposes punishment for maintaining a brothel house or allowing premises to be used as a brothel house. Section 4 imposes penalty for living on the earnings of prostitution. Section 5 deals with the procurement, inducement or indicing for a person for the sake of prostitution. Section 6 of the Act speaks about detaining a person in the premises where prostitution is carried out. 5. None of these sections speak about punishment to the customer of a brothel house. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fall under the provisions of Sections 3 to 7 of the Act, as the petitioner was not running a brothel house nor did he allow his premises to be used as a brothel house. The petitioner is not alleged to be living on the earnings of prostitution. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was procuring, inducing or in dicing any person for the sake of prostitution nor is it the case of the prosecution that any person was earning on the premises where prostitution is carried out. The petitioner is not alleged to be living on the earnings of prostitution. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was procuring, inducing or in dicing any person for the sake of prostitution nor is it the case of the prosecution that any person was earning on the premises where prostitution is carried out. 6. I, therefore, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not liable for punishment under the provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act. Consequently, the prosecution of the petitioner is unjust and the case against him is liable to be quashed." 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the Ruling of Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.56504 of 2015, in Mahesh Hebbar @ Mahesh vs. The Station House Officer, Bangalore, wherein, it has been held as follows : "2. On a reading and understanding of the Act of Section 3 of the Act is about punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel, Section 4 of the Act pertains to punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution, Section 5 of the Act is about procuring, inducing or taking (person) for the sake of prostitution, Section 7 is in respect of Prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places. 3. The petitioner, who is alleged to have been found in the brothel, does not fall within definition of prostitution as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Act, and no offence under the above Act can be made out against him. His prosecution is illegal and allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against him is pure abuse of process of law. Petition is allowed. The proceedings in CC No.851/2013, on the file of the Immoral Traffic Court, Bangalore, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, is quashed." 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the Ruling of this Court in the case of Vinitha and others vs. The Inspector of Police, Courtalam Police Station and another, in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4978 of 2019, dated 13.04.2022, wherein, the learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows : "10. Section 5 in The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 reads as under:- 5. Section 5 in The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 reads as under:- 5. Procuring, inducing or taking 1[person] for the sake of prostitution.— (1) Any person who— (a) procures or attempts to procure a[person], whether with or without (his] consent, for the purpose of prostitution; or 1[person], whether with or without 2[his] consent, for the purpose of prostitution; or" (b) induces a[person] to go from any place, with the intent that [he] may for the purpose of prostitution become the inmate of, or frequent, a brothel; or 1[person] to go from any place, with the intent that 3[he] may for the purpose of prostitution become the inmate of, or frequent, a brothel; or" (c) takes or attempts to take a [person], or causes a [person] to be taken, from one place to another with a view to [his] carrying on, or being brought up to carry on prostitution; or (d) causes or induces a [person] to carry on prostitution, 1[person] to carry on prostitution," [shall be punishable on conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than three years and not more than seven years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and if any offence under this sub-section is committed against the will of any person, the punishment of imprisonment for a term of seven years shall extend to imprisonment for a term of fourteen years: Provided that if the person in respect of whom an offence committed under this subsection,— (i) is a child, the punishment provided under this sub-section shall extend to rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years but may extend to life; and (ii) is a minor, the punishment provided under this sub-section shall extend to rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years and not more than fourteen years;] (3) an offence under this section shall be triable— (a) in the place from which a[person] is procured, induced to go, taken or caused to be taken or from which an attempt to procure or take such [person] is made; or 1[person] is procured, induced to go, taken or caused to be taken or from which an attempt to procure or take such 1[person] is made; or" (b) in the place to which he may have gone as a result of the inducement or to which he is taken or caused to be taken or an attempt to take him is made.” 11. If at all only the first petitioner/A2 can be proceeded by the prosecution and not the petitioners 2 and 3/A3 and A4. Since, it is specifically stated that the first petitioner/A2 has procured the witness No.1 for the purpose of prostitution, the factual issue, whether she is procured the witness No.1 or not, is a matter for trial. In view of the above facts, this criminal original petition is allowed in respect of the petitioners 2 and 3 and the impugned CC No.138 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Shengottai is hereby quashed as against the petitioners 2 and 3. In so far as the first petitioner/A2 this criminal original petition stands dismissed." 6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing on behalf of the first Respondent submitted that based on the information available with the Respondent Police, they had conducted a raid, in which, A1 and A2 were found to run a brothel under the name and style of “Ayur Bhavanam Ayurveda Massage and Treatments”. Therefore, the first Respondent had registered a case. 7. The judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl.Petition No.4161 of 2014, in Goenka Sajan Kumar vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, the order of Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.56504 of 2015, in Mahesh Hebbar @ Mahesh vs. The Station House Officer, Bangalore, and the order of this Court in Vinitha and others vs. The Inspector of Police, Courtalam Police Station and another, in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4978 of 2019, cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. 8. In the light of the above, the contention of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) is rejected, as the allegation stated does not attract the provisions of law cited by the Investigation Officer against the Petitioner herein. No overt acts against A4 had been found in the charge sheet. In the light of the above discussion, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case in Cr.No.34 of 2023 on the file of the first Respondent is quashed as against the Petitioner herein/A4 only. The first Respondent is directed to proceed with the trial in so far as the other accused are concerned. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.