Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 8th OF AUGUST, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15617 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
JIGNESH SONI S/O MAHENDRA SONI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O 1170, ALOK NAGAR, KANADIYA ROAD,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI SATYENDRA KUMAR VYAS, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE
ALONGWITH MS. NEHA YADAV, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPLICANT.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THROUGH POLICE STATION PALASIA, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI KAMAL KUMAR TIWARI, LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
THE RESPONDENT / STATE.)
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15627 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MAHENDRA SONI S/O JAGJIVEEVANDAS SONI, AGED ABOUT 69
1. YEARS, R/O 1170, ALOK NAGAR, KANADIYA ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
HUKUM SONI S/O JAGJEEVANDAS SONI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
2.
1170, ALOK NAGAR, KANADIYA ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI SATYENDRA KUMAR VYAS, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 10-08-2023
16:13:31
-2-
ALONGWITH MS. NEHA YADAV, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPLICANT.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THROUGH POLICE STATION PALASIA, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI KAMAL KUMAR TIWARI, LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
THE RESPONDENT / STATE.)
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15638 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
AMIT SONI S/O JITENDRA @ JITU SONI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O 1170, ALOK NAGAR, KANADIYA ROAD,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI SATYENDRA KUMAR VYAS, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE
ALONGWITH MS. NEHA YADAV, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPLICANT.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THROUGH POLICE STATION PALASIA, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI KAMAL KUMAR TIWARI, LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
THE RESPONDENT / STATE.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
[1] The above petitions have been filed by the applicants / accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 10-08-2023 16:13:31 -3- seeking quashment of order dated 27.12.2022 whereby the learned trial Court has framed the charges under Section 370(2), 370(3), 370(KA)(2), 346, 201, 120-B, 34 of IPC, Section 3, 4, 6, 7 of PITA Act and Section 22/38 of M.P. Excise Act.
The prosecution story is as under:
[2] Between the night of 30.11.2019 and 01.12.2019 while conducting an investigation in Crime No.651/2019 registered under Section 66-E, 67 and 67-A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000, the complainant Harbhajan Singh gave information that the owner of 'Lok Swami' Newspaper is illegally running a Dance Bar in the name of "My Home" in which the girls for dance in the bar are there. A police force headed by Rakesh Sharma, SDM, Food Officer, Officers of Electricity Company, Excise Department, Women and Child Development and the police conducted a raid in "My Home" and found 67 girls were found residing in small rooms like bonded labour. They were brought from other States and compelled to live in pathetic conditions by J. Varprasad Rao and owners Amit Soni and Jittu Soni, The police recorded their statements according to which they are being compelled to live in a small room for the purpose of dancing in the bar room. They are not being paid adequate remuneration and provident fund etc. by Manager J. Varprasad Rao and owners Amit Soni and Jitu Soni, and their earning is depended on the tips given by the customers.
The FIR dated 21.12.2019 was registered against Manager J. Varprasad Rao, Amit Soni and Jitu Soni and others. Those 67 girls were not released even after recording their statements.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 10-08-2023 16:13:31 -4-[3] Shri Satyendra Kumar Vyas, learned Senior Advocate for the applicants submit that these applicants have wrongly been made accused in this case because they happens to be a close relative of main accused Jitu Soni. The police has not collected any material to connect them with this crime except the memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The girls recovered from „My Home‟ have also not made specific allegations against them in their statement under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. to establish the charges under Section 370 against them. There is no allegation that these applicants forced these girls to indulge into the activities of prostitution, they were engaged in the „My Home‟ for dance and for which they were paid honorarium by the owner of „My Home‟. They were provided accommodation, food and other facilities where they lived with their husband.
[4] Since the police has registered a number of FIRs against Jitu Soni, therefore, these applicants have been implicated. They are facing trial since last 2 to 3 years but none of the girls witness came forward till date in the trial to give evidence. It is further submitted that there is no such designated officer notified in the State Government to investigate the matter into the charges of PITA Act hence, the charges be quashed and these applicants be acquitted.
[5] Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari, learned public prosecutor appearing for the respondent / State submits that at this stage it cannot be said that charges are not proved against the present applicants on the basis of the allegations and the FIR and the statement of witnesses. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 10-08-2023 16:13:31 -5- ingredients of Section 376 of Cr.P.C. are there in charge-sheet. These 67 girls were rescued from the „My Home‟ where they were forced to do the work against their wishes. One of the applicant is son and another two applicants are the brother of Jitu Soni who is owner of „My Home‟. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. mini trial cannot be conducted to give clean chit to the accused.
[6] It is further submitted that against the charge the revision lies but applicants have filed petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. which is not maintainable, there is no miscarriage of justice.
I have heard both the parties at length and perused the case diary.
[7] After examining the material available in the case diary, learned trial Court has framed the charges, therefore, M.Cr.C. is liable to be dismissed.
[8] The Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v/s Aryan Singh etc. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 379] in paragraph No.9 and 10 of the judgment has examined the scope of interference by High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C:
9. Having gone through the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings and discharging the accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal proceedings in exercise of the limited powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and/or in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. From the impugned common judgment and order Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 10-08-2023 16:13:31 -6- passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not".
[9] Prima facie this is not a case of no evidence. Prima facie, the allegations against this applicant constitutes an offence of trafficking. They all were involved in the objectionable activities going on in the „My Home‟ in statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the rescued girls have deposed against the applicants.
[10] In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, M.Cr.C. No.15617/2023, M.Cr.C. No.15627/2023 and Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 10-08-2023 16:13:31 -7- M.Cr.C. No.15638/2023 are dismissed.
[11] Office is directed to keep a photocopy of M.Cr.C. No.15617/2023 in M.Cr.C. No.15627/2023 and M.Cr.C. No.15638/2023.
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Divyansh Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 10-08-2023 16:13:31