PRABHAKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 24.11.2015 passed by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in C.M.P.No.5386 of 2015 in AVS Cr.No.138 of 2015, which was confirmed by the learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge, XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 18.04.2016 in Crl.Appeal No.40 of 2016.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the present petitioner is the husband of the victim namely, Tmt.Kajol, aged 23 years, who is said to have been secured by the respondent police in Crime No.138 of 2015. The respondent police arrested one Senthil Kumar under Sections 4(1) and 5(1) of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act on 08.11.2015. Subsequently, the victim was subjected to medical examination and was ordered to be kept under interim safe custody at Government Vigilance Home, Mylapore, Chennai. The petitioner has filed a petition before the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, for custody of the victim. The trial Court, erroneously, dismissed the said petition. It is further contended that the learned Magistrate has failed to consider the fact that as per the remand report, the petitioner's wife was allegedly secured from Koyambedu Bus Terminus, while arresting the accused. The place where the victim Kajol was secured does not come within the ambit of the definition at Section 2(a) of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. It is further contended that the Court below failed to look into the procedural irregularities and illegalities committed by the respondent in securing the victim Kajol, who has been secured and produced before him under Section 15(5) of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. Further, while passing the order, the Court below failed to look into the violation of Section 17(6-A) by the Special Police Officer. Since the Court below has not look into the legal positions in this case, the order of the trial Court has to be set aside and the custody of the victim has to be given to the petitioner.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would contend that since the petitioner is not able to prove the fact that he is the husband of the victim, he is not entitled to file a petition for custody of the victim. It is further contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate and hence, the learned Government Advocate prayed that the Criminal Revision Case may be dismissed.