TRIPATH KAUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been directed against the order of SDM dropping the proceedings against respondent no.2 which were initiated under Sec.20 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). An application was moved by the petitioner, inter alia, praying that respondent be ordered to be removed from the local jurisdiction and particularly from 2nd floor, 91, Satya Niketan, Moti Bagh-ll, New Delhi in terms of Section 20 of the Act, On the basis of the said application filed by the petitioner show cause notice under Sec.20 of the Act was issued by the SDM on 3.6.94. In the said notice it was mentioned by the learned SDM that :-

(2.) However, the SDM on 26.10.94 dropped the proceedings, inter alia, stating that in view of the fact that the case is pending in the court of metropolitan magistrate under the Act and another matter is pending in the court of civil judge who has ordered that the respondent should be evicted only in accordance with law. On the basis of aforesaid two cases, SDM vide impugned order came to a finding that proceedings initiated under Sec.20 of the Act if allowed to continue would only hamper the justice and, thereafter, dropped the proceedings.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.R.N. Mittal has vehemently argued that once learned SDM has invoked Sec.20 of the Act, he has to conclude the enquiry and have ordered after such enquiry if he comes to a conclusion that the respondent was a prostitute then he ought to have ordered the removal of the respondent from the local limit of his jurisdiction, if SDM on the basis of material before him was satisfied that the respondent was not a prostitute within the meaning of Sec.20 of the Act the learned SDM ought to have ordered accordingly.