SHAIK ASHA RANI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent in not allowing her to use the premises i.e., Flat No.212, Lansum Greens Apartment, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam City though the same was not seized as per the seizure report filed in to the Court in Crime No.53 of 2020 as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to 3rd respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid property.

(2.) The petitioner's case is thus. The petitioner was falsely implicated in the Crime No.53 of 2020 by the 3rd respondent for the offences u/Secs.370(A)(2) of IPC and Secs.3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(a) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act") on the allegation that the petitioner has been running a brothel house in Flat No.212, Lansum Greens Apartment, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam City and thus sexually exploiting the victim girls and booked case against her on 03.03.2020. The petitioner was arrested in the above case and she was enlarged on bail vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.19 of 2020 dated 29.04.2020 by the learned VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of Offences against Women, Visakhapatnam. During the course of investigation, the Prosecution Agency seized the cash of Rs.12,000/- and Blue colour Vivo Company Android Smart Mobile Phone from the petitioner and some other articles and things from the other accused under the cover of Panchanama dated 03.03.2020. Thereafter, the Police submitted Form-60 duly mentioning about the seized articles from the accused. In the said Form-60 nothing is mentioned about the Flat No.212. The petitioner has been residing in the said premises as lessee for the last two years. Though the prosecuting agency did not seize the premises as per Form-60 submitted to the Court, however, the 3rd respondent has not been permitting the petitioner to enter the said premises and reside therein which is unjust and illegal. The petitioner filed an application dated 22.06.2020 bringing to the notice of the Trial Court and the said petition was returned on the observation that there was no mention about the seizure of Flat No.212 in the Form-60. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) Learned Asst. Government Pleader for Home, on instructions submitted that the Investigating Officer in terms of Section 18 of the Act, made a requisition to the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam for closure of the subject premises and the proceedings are pending before the said authority. In view of his submission, this Court on 01.09.2020 suo motu added the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam as 4th respondent.