THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3733 of 2009 ORDER : Heard Sri T.Koteswara Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent. 2) The petitioner is arrayed as the 3rd accused in C.C. No.642 of 2009 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rangareddi District at L.B.Nagar. The prosecution is in respect of the alleged offences committed by A-1 to A-4 under Sections 3 to 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The charge sheet shows that the 3rd accused is said to have been called by the 4th accused to her house and the 3rd accused paid Rs.500/- to the 4th accused for the purpose of prostitution and that the 3rd accused was waiting in a room when the raid by the police had taken place. The same were the allegations in the first information report also. 3) Sri Koteswara Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sections 3 to 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 are not attracted in the case of the 3rd accused as he was neither keeping nor managing nor acting nor assisting in the keeping or management of a brothel and as he never used his premises to be used as a brothel and he is not in any way connected with the premises used as a brothel. The learned counsel further contended that the allegations do not show that the 3rd accused was living on the earnings of prostitution of any person to be brought within the purview of Section 4 and is not procuring or inducing or taking a person for the purpose of prostitution as covered by Section 5. 4) On the allegations in the first information report and the charge sheet and on the unambiguous language of Sections 3 to 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner undoubtedly appear to be of sufficient force. However, the trial Court is already seized of the matter and it will undoubtedly consider the applicability or otherwise of the cited provisions of law to the case of the 3rd accused and if in respect of the alleged acts, the 3rd accused cannot be found fault with committing any offence punishable under law, the trial Court will undoubtedly give the benefit of such conclusion to the 3rd accused. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is very restricted and is available only in the rarest of rare cases and it has to be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection. 5) The offences alleged against A-1 to A-4 are offences against the society at large and they deserve to be gone into in depth on merits by the trial Court and not to be disposed of in a summary proceeding by this Court. It is for the trial Court to examine whether on the facts proved before it, the 3rd accused can be attributed with the liability for any offence punishable under any law or not. Consequently, the criminal petition is not sustainable. 6) The Criminal Petition is dismissed, but none of the observations made in this order shall influence the determination of the case on merits by the trial Court in accordance with law. __________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J August 26, 2009. KSH