IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2293 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------- (CR.148/08 OF PEROORKADA POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER/ A6: ------------------------ SHAN @ SHANUDEEN, AGED 27, S/O. SALIM, SHAN MANZIL, T.C 6/2163, ELLIPODU, VALIYAVILA WARD, VATTIYURKAVU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ THE C.I OF POLICE, PEROORKADA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2293 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. In the F.I.R allegations are raised under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the said Act. The crux of the allegations is that a brothel was run masquerading the same as an Ayurvedic Massage Centre. The petitioner was allegedly found to be present at such centre. He was allegedly found to have indulged in promiscuous sexual intercourse with a woman partner. He was arrested. He was kept in custody and at long last enlarged on bail by the learned Magistrate. Investigation is in progress. 2. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings against him. 3. What is the reason ? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations even if accepted in toto, will not constitute an offence under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. According to the petitioner, in as Crl.M.C. No.2293 of 2008 2 much as these offences shown in the F.I.R will not be attracted, this Court will be justified in invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has various contentions to advance. According to him offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Act will themselves be revealed in the facts of the case. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that even accepting the entire contentions, the petitioner cannot avoid culpable liability under Section 7 of the Act. At this stage, the Court may not embark on a venture to weigh the materials in golden scales to decide which offence under which particular section will be revealed. Even if the contention urged by the petitioner were accepted, it only shows that the petitioner may have gone to the premises only as a customer without any further culpable liability. If that be so, the police is bound to complete the investigation and raise allegations under Section 7 of the Act against the petitioner. May be, if the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner were accepted, the final report may not contain allegations under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Act. 5. I find merit in the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor. If the allegations raised in the F.I.R cannot constitute Crl.M.C. No.2293 of 2008 3 any offence, then certainly powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked in an appropriate case to thwart further action in a vexatious prosecution. But merely because not the offences alleged, but some other offences alone may lie, that would certainly be not a fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or need be invoked to prematurely terminate an investigation. The petitioner has already been arrested. The petitioner has already been enlarged on bail. No question of any future arrest or detention arises at all in the facts and circumstances of the case. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that even assuming that the allegations under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Act may not ultimately be justified, this is not a fit case where the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or ought to be invoked. 6. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to take all further steps in accordance with law which may otherwise be available to him, if the final report is adverse to him. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- Crl.M.C. No.2293 of 2008 4