under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash = Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 (1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 (for short ‘the Act’).= Mere perusal of the provisions above mentioned would clearly establish that a person who involves himself with intent to satisfy his sexual urge cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of the Act. As such, this Court is of the view that the present complaint against the petitioner is erroneous and without any legal basis and the petitioner cannot be punished under the provisions of the Act. Hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the above Crime are liable to be quashed.


PETITIONERRESPONDENT
V. BALACHANDER REDDY,  VSTHE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD., & 4 OTHERS,
PET.ADV. : VIJAY PISSAYRESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: U/s.482 Cr.p.c Quash the F.I.RDISTRICT:  HYDERABAD

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4095 OF 2013

ORDER:

          This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.6, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him in Crime No.66 of 2013 of Banjara Hills Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6  and 7 (1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 (for short ‘the Act’).
          According to the prosecution, 
on credible information that one person is running a brothel house at H.No.8-2-318/18/1/B,
Zehara Nagar, Banjara Hills Road No.10, Hyderabad, on 22.1.2013,  the Inspector of Police along with staff and mediators conducted search and found three female sex workers viz., (
1) Rituparna Podder; 
2) Sojia Khatoon; 
(3) Anjali Mukarjee, and 
four customers viz., 
1) G. Anand Reddy; 
2) M. Madan 
3) S. Venugopal Reddy and 
4) V. Balchander Reddy (petitioner herein). 
On interrogation, K. Srikantha Reddy, Sub-organizer, confessed that about six months back, he got acquainted with one Ramesh, R/o Hyderabad and he asked him to work as sub-organizer and look after the brothel house being run by the said Ramesh.
Heard.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that 
the petitioner used to visit the said house for massage in response to the advertisements and at the time of search, he sat in the hall and therefore, he cannot be treated as customer and the ingredients of Section 7 of the Act would not attract.
          Section 3 of the Act deals with punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. 
 Section 4 of the Act speaks about the punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution.  
Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act prescribes punishment for causing or inducing a person to carry on prostitution. 
 Section 7 (1) of the Act speaks about a person, who carries on prostitution and the person with whom such prostitution is carried on in any premises.
          Mere perusal of the provisions above mentioned would clearly establish that a person who involves himself with intent to satisfy his sexual urge cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of the Act.  
As such, this Court is of the view that the present complaint against the petitioner is erroneous and without any legal basis and the petitioner cannot be punished under the provisions of the Act. 
Hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the above Crime are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein in Crime No.66 of 2013 of Banjara Hills Police Station are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
                                       
               __________________                                     

            RAJA ELANGO, J

30th April, 2013

Nn
























HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

             













CRIMINAL PETITION No.4095 OF 2013














30th April, 2013
Nn




             






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.