REHAN AHMAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer for the quashment of the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report of Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 158 of 2005 against the petitioners for the offence under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and the order taking cognizance passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh on 2.12.2005 now pending before the Additional Sessions Judge. FTC VII. Hazaribagh.

(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that the informant, Sub -Inspector of Police of Katkamsandi police station intercepted a Maruti Van No. BR24B/9725 when the vehicle attempted to escape at the sight of the police party by speeding up. On interception, the informant found four persons -sitting there in the vehicle who were the petitioners and one Manisha Tirkey. On search of the vehicle certain quantity of used and unused condoms were recovered under the seat and on interrogation, the girl Manisha Tirkey confessed that she was in the trade of flesh (Prostitution) for the last two years and on that date (3.10.2005) she was brought to Chatra at 9 a.m. from Hazaribagh by the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 Babu @ Sarfaraz Khan and Sadul @ Sam -sad Ahmad on the assurance that the petitioner No. 1 would pay Rs. 500/ - in lieu of satisfaction of his sexual desire. She further confessed that at the Chatra house of the petitioner No. 1, all the petitioners had sex with her against the agreement and while returning from Chatra the petitioner No. 1 again had his sex with her in the vehicle itself. The vehicle was intercepted at about 7 p.m.

(3.) MR . Nikesh Kr. Sinha further submitted that the Apex Court in Delhi Administration v. Ram Singh, held the special police officer and his assistant police officers were the only competent persons to investigate offences under the Act and that the police officers not specially appointed as special police officer cannot Investigate the offences under the Act even if they were cognizable offences. Such observation was made by the Apex Court with reference to Sections 13(1), 13(3) and 2(1) of Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956. Mr. Nikesh Kr. Sinha clarified that verbatim of Section 13(1) of Suppression of Immoral Traffic in woman and Girls Act, 1956 and Section 13(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 substituted by Act 46 of 1978 with effect from 2.10.1979 were same and similar and therefore, the law as laid down by the Apex Court in Delhi Ad -ministration v. Ram Singh (supra) still holds good in the instant case.