AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2524 OF 2009 Smt. Nupur @ Neha Dhanraj Jadhav & Anr. ... Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Ms. Rama S. Pendkalkar for the petitioners. Mr. P.A. Pol, Public Prosecutor for the State. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 22ND JANUARY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. This petition is filed by one Ms. Nupur @ Neha Dhanraj Jadhav, who is a member of petitioner 2 – Navi Mumbai Massage & Health Center Owner's Welfare Association, Navi Mumbai. Petitioner 1 owns three Massage & Health Centers (for short, “the Massage Centers”) in Navi Mumbai. We are informed by learned AJN 2 counsel for the petitioners that there are 40 Massage Centers in Navi Mumbai. According to the petitioners, the police raid the Massage Centers in Navi Mumbai without prior notice. They threaten the owners of the Massage Centers. They force the owners to close down the Massage Centers and insist that they should bring orders of the court if they want to run their Massage Centers. According to the petitioners, the police make illegal demands of money. The petitioners have, inter alia, prayed in this petition that it be declared that the actions of the respondents of conducting raids in petitioner 1's three parlours and forcibly closing down petitioner 1's three parlours are illegal and in violation of her fundamental right as enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 2. Affidavits in reply are filed by Mr. Rajkumar Laxman Chaphekar, Inspector of Police (Admin.), attached to Vashi Police Station, Navi Mumbai and Mr. Pandharinath Ramchandra Sawant, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to AJN 3 Nerul Police Station, Navi Mumbai. The concerned police officers are also present in the court. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions from the police officers submitted that the allegations are false. He submitted that the police have not closed down any of the Massage Centers. He submitted that action is taken only against one Massage Center viz. “J for U Parlour” where certain illegal and immoral activities were noticed. A case is filed under the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 against the said “J for U Parlour”. The said “J for U Parlour” has been closed down by its owners. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the other Message Centers have been closed down by their respective owners and the police have nothing to do with the said closure. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, vehemently denied this argument. She submitted that it is the police who have compelled the owners to close down all the Massage Centers in Navi Mumbai. AJN 4 4. In our opinion, in view of the statement made by learned Public Prosecutor on instructions from the concerned police officers who are present in the court that except “J for U Parlour”, the police have, as of today, no material against any other Massage Centers obviously including those of which petitioner 1 is the owner, it is not necessary to entertain this petition. Needless to say that in view of the statement made before us, the petitioners can start running their Massage Centers if they so desire. We, however, make it clear that this order would not prevent the police from taking any action in accordance with law if any illegal or immoral activities are noticed. This order should also not be interpreted as an order issued by us permitting the petitioners to run their Massage Centers or permission given to the police to conduct raids and take action without there being any material for the same. Needless to say that if any such action is taken, the owners of such Massage Centers would be at liberty to adopt appropriate legal measures including approaching AJN 5 this court in accordance with law, if they so desire. We make it clear that we have not examined the merits of the case. 5. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.]