AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The applicants seek quashing of the First Information Report bearing Crime No.511/2025 registered with Police Station, Gadgenagar, District Amravati dated 03.07.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, “PITA”) and Charge-sheet No.953/2025 dated 04.11.2025 as well as consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR.
The charge-sheet indicates that on 02.07.2025, on receipt of secret information, a raid was conducted on the first floor of Next Level Mall, Amravati in the establishment namely “Spa99”, a massage centre wherein, a punter was already sent as a customer. During the raid, three victim girls were found alongwith used a packet of condom. Therefore, the aforesaid offence came to be registered against the person who runs the establishment “Spa99”, including the present applicants who are the owners of the shop which was given by them on rent by executing a leave and licence agreement to run the massage centre to co-accused Neeraj Singh Pandya. After completion of investigation and recording the statement of the witnesses including the victim girls, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the applicants and other co-accused.
It is contended on behalf of the applicants that they purchased the shop at Next Level Mall and thereafter, they gave the said shop premises to co-accused Neeraj Singh Pandya on leave and licence basis to run the massage centre namely Spa99. It is contended that it was expected by the applicants that the co-accused should use the said shop for the purpose of running the massage centre. According to him, there is nothing in the entire charge-sheet which will suggest that the applicants had knowledge of the fact that the co-accused is running a brothel in the premises owned by them in order to attract the offence under Section 3 or any other offence punishable under Sections 4, 5, 7 and 9 of the PITA. According to him, the applicants have no concern with the activities carried out by the co-accused in the said premises because they were unaware of the same and therefore, no Sections of the PITA will be applicable to the applicants. Therefore, he seeks quashing of the FIR.
Learned APP objected to the application on the ground that the applicants are owners of the said shop and even an owner has been made liable under Section 3 if he has given the premises knowingly and has knowledge that the same will be used as a brothel. Therefore, he sought rejection of the application.
Perusal of the entire charge-sheet reveals that the allegations against the applicants are that they are the owners of the said tenement. They permitted the said premises to be used for the purpose of prostitution and are deriving benefits out of the same and therefore, the applicants have been charged for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PITA.
It will be necessary to deal with Sections 3 and 4 of the PITA, which read thus:
“3.Punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel.—(1) Any person who keeps or manages, or acts or assists in the keeping or management of, a brothel shall be punishable on first conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.
(2)Any person who—
(a)being the tenant, lessee, occupier or person in charge of any premises, uses, or knowingly allows any other person to use, such premises or any part thereof as a brothel, or
(b)being the owner, lessor or landlord of any premises or the agent of such owner, lessor or landlord, lets the same or any part thereof with the knowledge that the same or any part thereof is intended to be used as a brothel, or is wilfully a party to the use of such premises or any part thereof as a brothel, shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine.
(2A) For the purposes of sub-section (2), it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of that sub-section, is knowingly allowing the premises or any part thereof to be used as a brothel or, as the case may be, has knowledge that the premises or any part thereof are being used as a brothel, if,—
(a)a report is published in a newspaper having circulation in the area in which such person resides to the effect that the premises or any part thereof have been found to be used for prostitution as a result of a search made under this Act; or
(b)a copy of the list of all things found during the search referred to in clause (a) is given to such person.
(3)Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, on conviction of any person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of any offence under that sub-section in respect of any premises or any part thereof, any lease or agreement under which such premises have been leased out or are held or occupied at the time of the commission of the offence, shall become void and inoperative with effect from the date of the said conviction.
4.Punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution.— (1) Any person over the age of eighteen years who knowingly lives, wholly or in part, on the earnings of the prostitution of any other person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both and where such earnings relate to the prostitution of a child or a minor, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years and not more than ten years.
(2)Where any person over the age of eighteen years is proved—
(a)to be living with, or to be habitually in the company of, a prostitute; or
(b)to have exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of a prostitute in such a manner as to show that such person is aiding, abetting or compelling her prostitution; or
(c)to be acting as a tout or pimp on behalf of a prostitute, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such person is knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution of another person within the meaning of sub-section (1).”
Thus, to bring the applicants within the purview of Sections 3 and 4, the prosecution has to prima facie demonstrate that either the applicants keep or manage the said tenement as a brothel or they had knowledge that the said premises is intended to be used as a brothel, or are willfully a party to the use of such premises or any part thereof as a brothel. The allegation against the applicants is not of managing the said premises as a brothel but it appears that the prosecution has come-up with a case that the applicants had knowledge that the said premises is intended to be used or is being used as a brothel. However, perusal of the entire charge-sheet does not reveal any material or evidence which even prima facie suggests that the applicants had knowledge about the activities being carried out in the said premises.
The applicants had purchased the said premises and had given the same to the co-accused on rent by agreement dated 16.12.2024 for running a massage centre. The said agreement is part of the charge-sheet. There is nothing in the entire charge-sheet which even remotely suggests that the applicants had knowledge of the fact that the other co-accused, who runs and manages “Spa99” was using the said premises owned by the applicants as a brothel. Though, the applicants were receiving rent from the co-accused but the same was for use of the said premises as a massage centre. There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicants were living directly on the earnings of prostitution. They were receiving only the rent of the said premises. The applicants had nothing to do with the activities of Spa99. The learned APP was unable to show any material which attributes knowledge to the applicants of using the premises as a brothel, therefore there is no question of the applicants living on the earnings of the prostitution. The charge is bereft of relevant material in this regard qua the applicants.
It will be relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others1, wherein in para 102, the Supreme Court has postulated seven situations where the Court can exercise the inherent powers to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings. The case of the applicants is squarely covered by clause (1) and (3) of Para 102 which reads thus:
“102.In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
Considering the facts mentioned above, a case is made out for quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings. Hence, the following order is passed:
The application is allowed.
First Information Report bearing Crime No.511/2025 registered with Police Station, Gadgenagar, District Amravati for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Charge-sheet No.953/2025 as well as consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute.
Footnotes
- 1.1992 Supp (1) SCC 335