Z LOURDIAH NAIDU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners-A4 and A5 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No. 337 of 2008 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yerramanzil, Hyderabad. A charge-sheet is filed against the petitioners and two others for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for brevity, 'the Act'). The allegations in the charge-sheet are that A1 and A2 are brothel organizers and both of them are running a brothel house in Flat No. 7A, Dhruvathara Apartment, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. The said premises was taken on rent by A1. On collection of an amount of Rs. 1000/- from each customer the accused used to send them to the guest house and out of the said amount a sum of Rs. 300/- is said to have been paid to the victim girls. Thus A1 and A2 are earning easy and illegal money by running a brothel house. The petitioners, who are A4 and A5, came to the said flat as customers as they were having link with A1. Petitioners used to visit the said premises as and when they come over to Hyderabad from their native place. On reliable information that the said premises was being used as a brothel house, the Inspector of Police, Panjagutta Police Station, raided the said premises on 3.6.2007 at 11.00 p.m. apprehended A2 to A5 in the said premises and seized money and mobile phones from the persons present there. On the basis of a report given by the Inspector of Police, a case in Cr. No. 413 of 2008 came to be registered against all the accused. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners mainly submits that even accepting the allegations in the charge-sheet to be true, no offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act is made out against the petitioners. According to him, the Act is silent as to the offence committed by the customers who visit the said house. He thus submits that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the said application on the ground that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are grave in nature and this Court cannot interdict the proceedings by invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.