SUBAIDA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first accused in CC 1223/2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vadakara is the petitioner herein, Who had been implicated in the aforesaid case for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 ('ITP Act', for short).

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is thus: On 23.4.2010 at about 2 pm, the Circle Inspector of Police, Vadakara got a telephonic message that the petitioner is keeping a brothel on the backyard of her house bearing No.OP III/423 of Onchiam Panchayat. Consequent to that, he along with his party consisting of Chombala Sub Inspector, Police Constables and Women Constables reached the scene of occurrence at about 2.30 p.m. and approached the house on foot after parking the jeep at a distance of 25 metres away from the house and saw that a portion of the house which was under construction was being used by the petitioner and another lady named Jesna (A2) for having sexual intercourse with accused 3 and 4, respectively. They surrounded the house and apprehended accused 1 to 3, while the 4th accused fled from there. Thereafter, an FIR was registered at Chombala Police Station for the offences as above.

(3.) The petitioner contends that offences under Sections 3, 4 and 7 of the ITP Act is not attracted for the reason that no specific act of prostitution as defined in the ITP Act had taken place and that there was also no plurality of relationship relied upon by the prosecution so as to bring it within the definition of a brothel house or to prove an act of prostitution. It is also pointed out that the prosecution has not been successful in pointing out that the petitioner was carrying on the alleged act of prostitution within the area notified under sub-Section (2) of Section 7 so as to attract the provisions of the Act. Lastly, it is pointed out that the investigation was conducted and the final report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chombala Police Station and that he is not an empowered officer as defined under the Act. For the reasons stated above, the proceedings against the accused needs to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.PC, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.