KUNJUMON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under S. 482 of the Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 131 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-V, Thiruvananthapuram.

(2.) The 1st petitioner is the owner of a lodge by name "Ruksana Tourist Home", situated at Valiyathura, near to the Thiruvananthapuram Airport. The 2nd petitioner is the Manager of the lodge. On 3.3.2010 at about 11.40 a.m., based on source information, the C.I. of Police, Poonthura Police Station conducted a search in the lodge and its premises. According to the prosecution, accused Nos. 3 and 4 were found inside Room No. 209 and accused Nos. 5 and 6 were found inside room No. 210. They were not able to convince the officer that they were married. Assuming that they had taken the rooms for indulging in the flesh trade, they were arrested. The petitioners are alleged to have facilitated the acts of the accused Nos. 3 to 6. Crime No. 222 of 2010 was consequently registered under S. 3, 4, and 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. Later, investigation was completed and final report was laid before the jurisdictional Court.

(3.) Sri. G. Sudheer, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted with much vehemence that the offences under Ss. 3, 4 and 5 of Act will not be attracted as against the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners, being owner and Manager respectively of a lodge, which is situated near to the Airport, had no reason to suspect the intentions of accused Nos. 3 to 6. He would urge that the prosecution had not placed any materials before court to even prima facie conclude that the accused Nos. 3 to 6 had even indulged in sexual intercourse. He would further argue that the couples, who had come together, had convinced the 2nd petitioner, who was the Manager of the lodge, that they had come for sightseeing to the nearby beach. The 2nd petitioner had no reason to think otherwise. It is pointed out that the proceedings against accused Nos. 5 and 6 have already been quashed by this Court holding that the ingredients of the offences alleged would not be made out. The learned counsel would maintain that the 1st petitioner was not even present at the lodge at the time of search and he was arrayed as an accused in the course of investigation, as the ownership of the lodge stood in his name. He would submit that the lodge which is being operated after obtaining all licenses and permissions from the authorities concerned, could not have been categorised as a brothel as defined in S. 2(a) of the Act, submits the learned counsel. By placing reliance on State of Kerala v. Pathumma 1968 KLT 453, Radhakrishnan K. v. State of Kerala 2008 (2) KLT 521 and Mr. X, Central Kerala v. State of Kerala 2009 (2) KLT 7, it was contended that none of the offences attributed to the petitioners would stand legal scrutiny. Except for collecting the rent for the stay, the petitioners have not secured any gain, contends the learned counsel.