IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 22361 of 1998 BETWEEN: Smt. A. Lakshmi W/o. A. Shanker, 23-4-55, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada - 520 011. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada. 3 Sri. G. Ratan Raju, Law and Order, Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of certiorari calling for the records in the case in Cr.No.254/98 on the file of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station under Sec. 8(a) & (b) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act pending on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate and quash the same, consequently direct the respondents to pay damages to the petitioner in a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs and be pleased to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. V. RAVINDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner, a family lady, W/o. A. Shanker, residing in the first floor of the building bearing Municipal No.23-4-55, Kakarapartivari Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, submits that the said building belongs to one M. Subrahmanyam S/o. Rama Rao and the same is occupied by the owner and some other tenants. One of the tenants, Balagangadhar Tilak, residing in the adjacent portion of the petitioner, in the first floor, fell in arrears of rent for a long time and failed to pay the same to the landlord and suspecting that he would vacate the portion without intimation, the landlord requested the petitioner and her husband to intimate him if the said Balagangadhar Tilak attempts to vacate the said premises. She further submits that when the said Balagangadhar Tilak tried to vacate the said premises in the month of February 1998, she informed the same to the landlord over telephone. Boring grudge about the information given to the landlord the said Balagangadhar Tilak threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and stated that he would involve her in police cases. 2. Petitioner further submits that on 10.05.1998 at about 2 PM the third respondent – G. Ratan Raju, Sub-Inspector, Law and Order, Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, came to her residence asking her to come to the police station for the purpose of enquiry into some anonymous calls. The petitioner agreed to go to the police station along with one Mr. Saidulu, while so, the third respondent grew wild and abused her in vulgar language and when the said Saidulu intervened, he was also beaten up. The third respondent caught hold of the petitioner and dragged her out of her house. The petitioner also makes serious allegations against the third respondent with regard to outraging her modesty and misbehaviour meted out at her house in the presence of the neighbours. When the petitioner went to the police station she found Balagangadhar Tilak in the office room of the third respondent and at the police station the third respondent demanded her to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to Balagangadhar Tilak for having complained about his vacating the premises to the landlord. As the petitioner did not accept for the illegal demand a false case has been foisted against her in FIR No.254 of 1998 dated 10.05.1998 for the offence under Section 8(a) and (b) Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) and the complainant is the Sub-Inspector of Police/third respondent and the copy of the FIR was submitted to the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and another copy was marked to the Inspector of police and also to the Assistant Commissioner of Police. 3. The basis for registration of the FIR is the mediators report dated 10.05.1998 said to have been recorded by the Circle Inspect of Police. A perusal of the mediators report goes to show that at 7.30 PM on 10.05.1998 in the front of a double storied building of Subrahmanyam at Kakarapartivari Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada in the presence of the mediators and the Circle Inspector of Police, Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Constables No.1094, 270, 343 and Women Police Constable No.1091, the petitioner standing on the public road removed her pallu (paita) exposing her chest, singing vulgar songs and inviting male persons for prostitution by signals and creating public nuisance obstructing the movement of the public. Accordingly, all the persons present there surrounded her and on enquiry she revealed her name as Atchakala Lakshmi, W/o. Shanker, 36 years, R/o. Kakarapartivari Street and arrested her in the presence of the mediators and registered a case under Section 8(a) and (b) of the Act. It is stated that the bail bonds were obtained on 10.05.1998 but neither the Sub-Inspector nor the Circle Inspector of Police sent the copy of FIR immediately to the concerned Magistrate and the same was sent only after three days. Though the Circle Inspector recorded the mediators report, the Sub-Inspector only chose to make a complaint and register the FIR and the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Court on 16.05.1998 and she was remanded to judicial custody and released on bail on 18.05.1998. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mediators report was recorded in the police station even though no such incident occurred on 10.05.1998 as alleged in the mediators report. He further submits that it is unimaginable and unperceivable as to how such an incident can occur, more so, in the case of the petitioner being a decent, respectable family lady residing in a residential house along with several other tenants. In fact, the landlord – Mr. Subrahmanyam, one Mopathy Udayabhaskar - a Gazetted Officer working as Deputy Director in the Industries Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh and three neighbours have filed their affidavits before this Court stating that the petitioner cannot be attributed of any such conduct as alleged in Cr.No.254 of 1998 and that the case is concocted and false case and that the petitioner is a decent and respectable family lady. He further submits that the petitioner also filed a private complaint against the Sub-Inspector of Police but there was no investigation for a considerable time though the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates for immediate investigation without any undue delay. He further submits that the petitioner has been taking appropriate steps to contest the final report and for taking appropriate action in accordance with law. 5. The contents of the mediators report and the complaint goes to show that the FIR is absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach to a just conclusion believing that such an incident had occurred. I am of the opinion that in the instant case there was no complaint and even according to the respondent the previous record of the petitioner goes to show that there are no cases pending against her and she comes from a respectable family of the upper income group and lives with her husband and children. Therefore, it is unimaginable as to how the petitioner, a family lady, is said to have behaved in such an indecent manner attracting the provisions of Section 8(a) and (b) of the Act. Under Section 8(a) of the Act, whoever, in a public place or within the sight of, and in such a manner as to be seen or heard from, any public place, whether from within any building or house or not - by words, gestures willfully exposes her person or otherwise tempts or endeavours to tempt, or attracts or endeavours to attract the attention of, any person for the purpose of prostitution or solicits or molests any person, or loiters or acts in such manner as to cause obstruction or annoyance to persons residing nearby or passing by such public place or to offend against public decency, for the purpose of prostitution, shall be liable for punishment. Even assuming that if the petitioner is of such character, it is unimaginable as to how she would be doing such an act right in front of her house where she resides. There is no information or material to show as to whom the petitioner attracted and who are the persons that were obstructed. In all probability, the said Balagangadhar Tilak alone is the reason and responsible for foisting such a false case against the petitioner. Had there been no instigation by the said Balagangadhar Tilak the question of recording the mediators report in the presence of four Constables, the Sub-Inspector and the Circle Inspector, as if a grave offence has been committed or occurred, does not arise. A perusal of the allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis on which no prudent person can ever come to a just conclusion believing such statements as true and genuine. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted on the basis of the said FIR, as the same is liable to be quashed and the FIR accordingly quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 18, 2008 DSK