Orissa High Court
Siba Charan Patri vs State Of Orissa on 21 August, 2017
Author: S. K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 2459 Of 2004
An application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 in connection with G.R. Case No.301 of 2004
pending on the file of S.D.J.M., Kendrapara.
-----------------------------
Siba Charan Patri ......... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Orissa ......... Opposite party
For Petitioner: - Mr. Lagnajit Pattnaik
For State: - Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik
Addl. Govt. Advocate
-----------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 21.08.2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. K. SAHOO, J.Heard Mr. Lagnajit Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, learned counsel for the State.
In this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner Siba Charan Patri has challenged the impugned order 2 dated 01.11.2004 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara in G.R. Case No.301 of 2004 in taking cognizance of the offences under sections 3/5/7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereafter '1956 Act') and issuance of process against him which arises out of Kendrapara P.S. Case No.152 of 2004.
The first information report was lodged by one Ramesh Chandra Padhi, S.I. of Police, Kendrapara police station stating therein that after receiving reliable information on 07.05.2004 about sexual exploitation and prostitution being carried out in Tulsi Lodge, Kendrapara, he along with other police officials proceeded to the lodge along with two witnesses of the locality. The petitioner who was the owner of Tulsi Lodge was present at the gate of the lodge and he was asked to open the doors of the rooms in order to facilitate the raid and accordingly, the petitioner opened the room. The informant found a man and woman in each of the four rooms in objectionable positions and it was ascertained that one Shyamsundar Das who is a rickshaw puller used to carry the customers to the lodge on the direction of the petitioner. Since no satisfactory explanation could be given by the inmates of the lodge for such objectionable positions in the lodging and being satisfied that the petitioner is 3 being paid cash by the customers for such sexual act in the lodging located in the public place, the F.I.R. was lodged.
After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under sections 3/5/7 of the 1956 Act. After perusing the case records and other connected papers, the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara found prima facie case against the petitioner and other eight co-accused persons and accordingly took cognizance of the offences and issued process against them.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted there are no materials on record to issue process against the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order in respect of the petitioner should be quashed. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the impugned order.
Section 3 of the 1956 Act prescribes punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel. Sub-section (2)(b) of section 3 states that any person who being the owner of any premises with the knowledge that the same or any part thereof is intended to be used as a brothel or is willfully a party to the use of such premises or any part thereof as a brothel, shall be punishable with imprisonment and with fine. Sub-section (2-A) of section 3 states that for the purposes of 4 sub-section (2), it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that any person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of that sub-section, is knowingly allowing the premises or any part thereof to be used as a brothel. Section 5 of the 1956 Act prescribes punishment for procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution. Section 7 of the 1956 Act prescribes punishment for prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places. 'Brothel' according to section 2(a) of the 1956 Act includes any house, room or place or any portion of any house, room or place including a conveyance which is used for the purpose of sexual exploitation or abuse for the gain of another person or for the mutual gain of two or more prostitutes. 'Prostitution' according to section 2(f) of the 1956 Act means the sexual exploitation or abuse of persons for commercial purpose.
There are prima facie materials available on record to show that the petitioner was the owner of the Tulasi Lodge, Kendrapara. The manner in which men and women were found in different rooms of the lodge in objectionable position by the informant and other police officials, the presence of the petitioner in the lodge when sexual activities are going on in different rooms and other surrounding circumstances available on record clearly indicate that the petitioner being the owner of 5 the lodge was using the lodge as a brothel and he was procuring different persons with the assistance of rickshaw puller Shyamsundar Das for the sake of prostitution in the lodge which situates in the vicinity of public place. Since prima facie materials for commission of offences under sections 3, 5 and 7 of the 1956 Act against the petitioner are available, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the CRLMC application being devoid of merit stands dismissed.
..............................
S. K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 21st August, 2017/Sisir