IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4543 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.50/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.3: -------------------------------------------------- BIJOY MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, PERUMPUZHAPAKUTHIYIL, ELLUMPURAM PO., MUTTOM (VIA), THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONKUNNAM, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss CRMC.NO.4543/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.1: COPY OF THE F.I.R DTD. 18/09/2009 PREPARED BYTHE C.I. OF POLICE, PONKUNNAM POLICE STATION. ANNEX.II: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DTD. 23/01/2010 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, KANJIRAPPALLY. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4543 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.345 of 2009 of Pallickathodu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (for short, “the Act”). Prosecution case is that on 18.09.2009 at about 5.30 p.m. petitioner was found in a compromising position with CW9 at the house of the first accused which allegedly was being used as a brothel CW9 having been procured for the said purpose by the second accused. Learned counsel contends that offences charged under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act cannot stand against petitioner. Section 7 of the Act (not incorporated in the final report) also cannot apply since the prosecution has no case that the house of first accused comes within Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 7. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that going by the statement of CW9, petitioner had paid money to her for consenting for sexual activity. 3. As submitted by learned counsel, learned Magistrate has not framed charge against petitioner so far. If that be so, it is open to the petitioner to contend before learned Magistrate that none of the offences charged could be framed against petitioner and seek discharge under Section 239 of the Crl.MC No.4543/2010 2 Code of Criminal Procedure. If any such contention is raised learned Magistrate has to consider that contention. Learned Magistrate shall also consider, having regard to the facts of the case whether Section 7 of the Act is attracted. Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed without prejudice to the right of petitioner to raise a plea of discharge before the learned Magistrate. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks