* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3302 OF 2008 Smt.Zubeda Mohd.Ashraf Rangrez .....Applicant/petitioner Orig.Accused no.2 V/s. 1.State of Maharashtra (Social Service Branch), C.I.D. Immoral Traffic Cell ..... Respondents] ======= Mr.S.V.Naique, Mr.G.P.Mhaske Iyer, Adv.for applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for State. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 21ST JANUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The applicant is accused no.2 in Sessions Case No.355 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Section 292 read with Section 34 read with Section 3, 4, 5 and 7(1) (b) of The Immoral Traffic [Prevention] Act, 1956 pending in the Sessions Court at Mumbai. She has filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the F.I.R. No.00/2005 [Nagpada Police Station] C.R.No. 423/2005. It may be mentioned at this stage that on the date of filing of this application her * 2 * discharge application being Misc. Application No. 194 of 2008 dated 11th March 2008 was pending. The same came to be rejected by the order dated 6th December, 2008. A copy of the order has been produced by the respondent-State. 2. Briefly stated, the facts alleged by the prosecution in the case are as follows: . On receiving information that one Fleming Frank Rodrigues was running a brothel house, the Assistant commissioner of Police Mr.Ingale laid a trap in which a bogus customer by name Mohsin was sent to that house. The bogus customer went to the house of accused no.1 and asked for a girl for sex. Accused no.1 provided a girl to him. When they both went into a room, at the appropriate time, the bogus customer signalled the raiding party which raided the premises of accused no.1 At that time, the applicant herein was found in the premises alongwith her daughter, two other girls and three minor boys. The police seized obscene CDs, photographs, cassettes and video camera from the place. It is alleged that accused no.1 with the help of accused no.2 runs a brothel house. He also prepares pornography material in the form of CDs by using young boys. The three boys who were found at the places were seen in the video films in indecent positions. Initially, the FIR was registered as 00/2005, which was later * 3 * numbered as C.R.No. 423 of 2005. 3. The applicant denies her role in the offences alleged. She however does not dispute her presence in the premises raided alongwith her daughter. She claims that she had visited the premises in search of some employment for herself and her daughter. There are allegations made in the application that the applicant has been implicated in the case out of spite. An attempt has also been made to give communal colour to the incident by baldly alleging that she is implicated alongwith her daughter in the instant case as she belongs to a minority community. There are no particulars whatsoever stated. It is not the applicant's case that any of the concerned officers knew her beforehand for any reason. There is no material on record to even remotely indicate that there was any animosity in the minds of the police to implicate the applicant in such a serious matter. 4. Mr.Naique, the learned counsel for the applicant submits with substantial vehemence that the complaint has been filed in breach of Section 13 of The Immoral Traffic [Prevention] Act, 1956. It is contended that the Home Department, Mantralaya by its Notification dated 14th March, 2006 has appointed the Inspector of Police, Social Service Branch, Mumbai as a special officer for the area of all police * 4 * divisions in Mumbai. The complaint however is filed by one Mr.Bhillare, a police sub-inspector. According to Mr.Naique, the proceedings are required to be quashed on this ground alone. I find no substance in this submission because the record shows that the entire investigation is carried out at the instance of and under the supervision of Mr.Ingale, Assistant Police Commissioner. There is no bar to such an officer being assisted by the subordinate officers. The Notification dated 14th March 2006 appoints all police officers including women police officers subordinate to the Special Officer to assist in and deal with the cases under the Act. It is the claim of the prosecution that in the instant case, the Assistant Police Commissioner has merely obtained assistance of the police officers working with him by sending them on the raid alongwith the other officers. This contention finds support from the material produced. In the circumstances, the application is dismissed. [JUDGE]