IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1897 of 2010() ------------------------------------- C.C.107/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, MAVELIKARA. ..................... PETITIONERS/A1 & A2: ---------------------------------- 1. SANDHYA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.SREEDHARAN, CHAPRAYIL VEEDU, PONAKOM MURI, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SANKARA NARAYANA PILLAI, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.SIVARAMA PILLAI, PALATHARAYIL, PONNEZHA, THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 1897 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 1st day of November,2010 ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.107/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikara taken cognizance for the offences under sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that based on the final report, ingredients of the offences are not attracted and therefore continuation of the proceedings is only an abuse of process of the court and hence it is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Relying on the decision of this court Crl.M.C.1897/2010 2 in X v. State of Kerala (2009(2) KLT 7), Radhakrishnan K. v. State of Kerala (2008(2) I.L.R. Kerala 493), State of Kerala v. Pathumma (1968 KLT 4) and the Apex Court in Krishnamurthy v. Public Prosecutor, Madras (1967 Crl.L.J.544 SC), learned counsel vehemently argued that there is no material to show that the house of the first petitioner is a brothel as defined under the Act and there was no case of any previous incident and in such circumstances the offences are not attracted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the Case Diary. On going through the Case Diary, I cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and hold that the offences are not attracted. Petitioners are entitled to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate at the time of trial. Petition is disposed granting liberty to raise all the contentions raised herein before the learned Magistrate. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- Crl.M.C.1897/2010 3 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006