DINANATH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of his criminal prosecution under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls' Act, 1956 along with 11 others in Bettiah Mufassil P.S. Case No. 444 of 1992.

(2.) Such of the facts as are necessary for proper appreciation of the petitioner's case need only be stated. Mr. Ghulam Rabbani, Depu Superintendent of Police (Hqs), West Champaran received a secret information on 24.12.1992 at about 7 p.m. that one Sita Rajgarhiya was keeping some young girls of Nepal and Kerala in his Rest House near Manua Pool within Bettiah Mufassil Police Station West Champaran, Mr. Rabbani made a Sanha entry in the Police Station and along with the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station and a force of armed police, raided the Rest House and found a number of persons including the petitioner and some girls in compromising position in different rooms 6f the Rest House. The petitioner along with others was arrested and Mr. Rabbani prepared a written report on his own statement at 10.30 p.m. on 24.12.1992 and a formal first information report was drawn up on its basis instituting a case bearing Bettiah Mufassil P.S. Case No. 444 of 1992 under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls' Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the petitioner and ten others. In so far the petitioner is concerned, the allegations made was that he was found in compromising position with a girl called Savita Kumari aged 15 years in the southern room of the Rest House. It was also alleged that one Prabhu Nath Singh was the Manager of the Rest House who in collusion with some others, used to engage girls obtained from Nepal for immoral traffic in the said Rest House and the amount thus earned used to be shared by them. A sum of Rs. 4228 and a golden type tops were alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner denies that he was arrested from inside the room of the Rest House. He claims that he had left his motor-bike in the Rest House during the night as it had developed some trouble and that the police had arrested him from his residence at Bettiah, the next day and falsely prosecuted in the case.

(3.) Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in course of his argument had pressed this application only on one ground, namely, that the Deputy Superintendent of Police had no authority in law to raid the Rest House and register a case. He referred to Section 13 of the Act which reads as follows: