Crm. M. No.M.30687 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crm. M. No.M.30687 of 2008 Decided on 14 .7. 2009. Jito @ Jyoti wife of Gaurav @ Sheru & daughter of Bansi Lal .............. Petitioner. versus State of Punjab. ........... Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. K.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.S.Pannu, DAG, Punjab. K.C.PURI, J . Jito @ Jyoti wife of Gaurav @ Sheru and daughter of Bansi Lal has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for quashing case FIR No.328 dated 7.12.2006 under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 ( in short – the Act) registered at Police Station City Faridkot (Annexure P-3). It has been alleged that on 7.12.2006 at about 9.20 p.m. an informer came to Bakhish Singh DSP, who was present at Kameana Gate Faridkot and intimated that Chiman Lal, owner of Sangam Hotel, Restaurant Crm. M. No.M.30687 of 2008 2 Kotakpura Road, Street No.7, Dogar Basti, Faridkot, used to give the hotel rooms for higher rent to boys and girls for bad activities (Sex) and running the Hotel like Chakkala. Some time before, some boys and girls entered in the Sangam Hotel. If raid is conducted in the said hotel, then boys and girls could be controlled in objectionable position. The information was found reliable and the concerned Station House Officer was directed on telephone to reach at the above stated Hotel with force and lady constable. Ruka was sent through PHG Jaskaran Singh to Police Station for registration of the case and on the basis of which FIR No.328 dated 7.12.2006 under the afore- mentioned offences was registered and raid was conducted. Accused Jito @ Jyoti, Poonam Rani, Krishan Kumar, Suresh Rani and Chaman Lal were arrested at the spot. After completion of the investigation challan against the accused was presented in the Court for trial. The petitioner has further alleged that FIR No.92 dated 3.11.2006 under Section 392 IPC has been registered against Smt.Simran @ Seema, Surinder Kaur, Nitu and two others. The petitioner filed an application to get back her belongings recovered in the said case on superdari. The report from SHO concerned called for 10.11.2006 and on receiving the report, the matter was adjourned to 20.11.2006 for consideration, then adjourned to 7.12.2006. It is alleged that when on 7.12.2006 the petitioner came to attend the Court and the matter was adjourned to 8.12.2006, then the petitioner along with others, who accompanied her, came there from Hissar got a room in Sangam Hotel and Restaurant, Faridkot after disclosing their correct address and identification and also got entered in the visitor's register of the Hotel. But, in connivance Crm. M. No.M.30687 of 2008 3 with the accused persons involved in FIR No.92 dated 3.11.1996 under Section 392 IPC, PS Sadiq, Faridkot registered at her instance, got registered the instant case FIR No.328 dated 7.12.2006 under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act against the petitioner and others as a counter blast, in fact, the case is totally false and fabricated one and the same being an abuse of process of law as no offence is made out against her. The ingredients of the offence have not been fulfilled by the allegations levelled against the petitioner. On notice, State of Punjab filed reply by way of affidavit of Sewa Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Faridkot. Respondent took preliminary objection and it has been alleged that the petitioner has concealed the necessary, material and true facts from this Court. The petition is based on false and frivolous grounds. The story of the petitioner is concocted one. The challan has even been presented in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot against the petitioner and others. The petitioner is now absconding and her warrant of arrest has already been issued by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the present petition is illegal, motivated and mala fide and the same deserves to be dismissed. On merits, the respondent denied all the allegations levelled by the petitioner and reiterated the contents of the impugned FIR. It has also been asserted that compliance of Section 15 of the Act has been made. Moreover, proceedings cannot be simply quashed on non-compliance of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. The investigation in the instant case has been conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is not less Crm. M. No.M.30687 of 2008 4 than the rank of Inspector. Denying other averments, the respondent-State prayed for dismissal of the instant petition being devoid of merits. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel and have carefully gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that to constitute an offence of prostitute, there should be an offer of money by the customer and acceptance of the same by the person, who offered her body. It is submitted that in view of authority in the case of Sushanta Kumar Patra alias Hemanta Kumar Das vs. State of Orissa 2000(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 592, the proceedings against the petitioner are unwarranted and unconstitutional. I have considered the said submission and have gone through the above said authority. The FIR has been registered against the accused and others under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. It is settled law that provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. can only be resorted if any grave abuse of process of the Court and case falls within the para- meters laid down in case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 RCR (Criminal) 604. There is no material on the file to warrant the conclusion that present petition is the abuse of the process of the Court. All the points raised in the petition can be raised at the time of trial. No case for invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. The petitioner has failed to make out a case that provision of Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 are not attracted. The defence of the accused can be considered only at the appropriate stage. The petitioner is Crm. M. No.M.30687 of 2008 5 playing hide and seek with the trial Court and is not appearing there. Court cannot grant relief to such a person. So, keeping in view all the above circumstances, no case for quashing the impugned FIR is made out. The instant petition stands dismissed. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE July 14, 2009 sv Crm. M. No.M.30687 of 2008 6