ORDER
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prays for quashing FIR No. 157 dated 13-9-2000 registered under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. 1956 (for. brevity, the Act) registered at Police Station ‘B’ Division, Amritsar.
2. A perusal of the First Information Report Annexure P-1 shows that there are serious allegations levelled against the petitioner who is involved in an immoral activity as she was found undressed in room No. 204 on second floor of Hotel Sita Niwas, Amritsar along with one Harjinder Singh. At the time of raid, they were in a compromise position. The allegations further show that on an information, a raid was conducted by Joining one Baldev Singh son of Jagat Ram, resident of Chowk Mann Singh. Baldev Singh was handed over currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- after preparing a memo along with their numbers. ‘The same currency notes were recovered from personal search of a waiter Bhopal Singh besides other currency notes. The Manager and the owner of the hotel slipped away and the search of various rooms was conducted. The petitioner along with one Harjinder Singh (many other females were found in other rooms) and a case under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Act was registered.
3. Mr. D. S. Pheruman, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that if the allegations levelled in the First Information Report are taken to be gospel truth, no offence under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Act is made out. According to the learned Counsel, only a Special Police Officer could conduct the raid and it is nowhere mentioned that the Deputy Superintendent of Police was authorised to do so and, therefore, no cognizance of the offence under the Act could be taken. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Administration v. Ram Singh, AIR 1962 SC 63 : (1962 (1) Cri LJ 106) and also a judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Patra alias Hemanta Kumar Das v. State of Orissa, (2000) 4 Rec Cri R 592 : (2000 Cri LJ 2689).
4. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the averments made in the First Information Report, I am of the considered view that no case is made out for quashing the First Information Report. xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx Section 2(a) defines the expression ‘brothel’ which includes any house, room, conveyance or place or a portion thereof which is used for the purposes of prostitution for the gain of another person or for the mutual gain of two or other persons. Similarly, Section 2(f) of the Act defines the expression ‘prostitution’ to mean the sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purposes. Section 3 of the Act prescribes punishment for those who keep, manage, act or assist in keeping or managing a brothel. They are liable to be sentenced on first conviction with a term not less than one year and not more than 3 years along with fine. Similarly, Section 8 of the Act talks of seducing or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution by making it an offence punishable in law for a period which may extend to six months on first conviction or with a fine. Section 2(a), (f) and Section 8 of the Act are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:–
“2(a). “brothel” includes any house, room, (conveyance) or place or any portion of any house, room, (conveyance) or place, which is used for purposes (of sexual exploitation or abuse) for the gain of another person or for the mutual gain of two or more prostitutes.
(f) “prostitution” means the sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purposes, and the expression “prostitute” shall be construed accordingly.
8. Seducing or soliciting for purpose of prostitution.– Whoever, in any public place or within sight of, and in such manner as to be seen or heard from, any public place, whether from within the building or house or not–
(a) by words, gestures, wilful exposure of her person (whether by sitting by a window or on the balcony of a building or house or in any other way), or otherwise tempts or endeavours to attempt, or attracts or endeavours to attract the attention of, any person for the purpose of prostitution; or
(b) solicits or molests any person, or loiters or acts in such manner as to cause obstruction or annoyance to persons residing nearby or passing by such public place or to offend against public decency, for the purpose of prostitution, shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both, and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, and also with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees;
(Provided that where an offence under
this section is committed by a man, he shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a period of not less than seven days but which
may extend to three months).”
5. From the perusal of aforementioned provisions, it is evident that the petitioner has committed acts which are punishable under the Act. It cannot be concluded that ingredients of various offences have not been fulfilled. She is equal partner in the commission of offences. Her presence, on the scene as well as acceptance of currency notes through the waiter clearly indicates the offences committed by her. Applying the principles laid down in the cases of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : (1992 Cri LJ 527), State of W. B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC. 561 : (1982 Cri LJ 819) and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : (1998 Cri LJ 1) it cannot be said that the allegations in the First Information Report do not disclose the commission of an offence and the First Information Report is frivolous. The petition is wholly without merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed.
6. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. No observation made in this order shall be construed as expression of opinion on the merit of the case.