Dismissed

Dolly Mahajan @ Dolly a. Khan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Nov 2007WP/1880/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, apprehending prosecution under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act after a raid and placement in a rehabilitation center, filed a writ petition. The High Court declined to quash the FIR, deeming it not a fit case for interference while investigation was ongoing and rejecting petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking quashing of the FIR was rejected; petitioners were directed to follow legal procedures for release from the rehabilitation center.

Dolly Mahajan @ Dolly a. Khan and Ors… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 1880 OF 2007

¶5

Office Notes, Office : Memorandum of Coram : appearances, Court’s : Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions : orders and Registrar’s orders :

¶6

Mr. V.P. Savant i/b P. M. Jadhav advocate, for petitioners.

¶7

Mrs. A. S. Pai APP for respondent State.

¶8

CORAM : R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR AND

¶9

Mrs. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.

¶10

DATE : NOVEMBER 1, 2007.

¶11

P.C. [Per Smt. V. K. Tahilramani, J.]

¶12

. Heard the learned advocate for the

¶13

petitioners	and		the	learned	APP fo	r the
respondent.		The		petitioners	are	seeking
quashing	of CR		No.	II	139 of 2007,	registered
at	Wagle		Estate	Police	Station, Thane	under

¶14

Section 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic

¶15

(Prevention) Act 1956.

¶16

Raid came to be conducted and at that at Sheetal Bar at Thane. The petitioners who claimed to be waitresses, were found at the

¶17

¶18

said	Bar.	The	conten	ts of	FIR	prim	a-facie
shows	that	prostitution		was	going	in	the
premises,	whe	n the		raid	was	con	ducted.
Looking	into	contents	of	the	FIR and	the	fact
that	investigation	is go	ing	on,	we do	not	find

¶19

this to be a fit case to interfere at this

¶20

stage. Hence, petition is rejected.

¶21

It may be stated here that the petitioners are not in police custody but they are in Rehabilitation Centre at Chembur. It would be open to the petitioners to take such steps for taking them out of the

¶22

rehabilitation center, as permissible in

¶23

accordance with law.

¶24

Sd/- [ R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.]

¶25

Sd/- [Smt. V. K. TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Dolly Mahajan @ Dolly a. Khan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dolly Mahajan @ Dolly a. Khan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. S.M. Construction and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vitthal Ambadas Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Abdul Azizi a. K. Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lal Bahadur Pal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Raghunath Yashwant Koli

Ranjit Kaur Jogindar Singh Bedi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.