Dismissed
Vijayalakshmi v. State of Kerala
Kerala HCCrl.MC/1720/2008
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1720 of 2008(D) -------------------------------------[CC.NO.702/2007 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, NEDUMANGAD, CRIME NO.580/2007 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION] ....................
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.4,5 & 6:
----------------------------------------------------
1. VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.DEVAKI, HOUSE NO.42, MAITHRI NAGAR, PUNANTHANAM DESOM, ASRAMAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM.
2. NEENU SHIHAB @ SUMAYYA, AGED 20, D/O. LAILA, LAILA MANZIL, KILIYALLOOR DESOM, MANGAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM.
3. REETHA @ ASHA, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.RATNAMMA, THANIMOODU KINGANI VEETTIL, KARINGANNOOR, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
-------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. [IN CRIME NO.580/2007 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEDUMANGAD]
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
prv.
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.
Crl.M.C.No.1720 of 2008
Dated this 03rd day of June, 2011
ORDER
Petitioners are accused 4, 5 and 6 in Crime No.580 of 2007 of Nedumangad Police Station and C.C.No.702 of 2007 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Nedumangad for offences punishable under Secs.3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic Act (for short, "the Act”). Petitioners request this Court to quash proceeding against them on the ground that they are collection agents, had gone for their duty and have been falsely implicated by CW4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.
2 The case is that accused 1 to 3 brought petitioners to the house in question offering `.1500/- each for engaging in prostitution, petitioners were found engaged in such act at the time the detecting officer detected the offence. I have gone through the records appended to this criminal miscellaneous case and find statement of witnesses to the effect that they had seen petitioners engaging in sexual intercourse with the men concerned.
Crl.M.C.No.1720 of 2008
-: 2 :-
petitioners have to urge and substantiate before the trial court. It is not as if this Court should exercise power under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and decide on that plea of petitioners and quash proceeding. I do not find reason to interfere. Petitioners have to face trial and set up appropriate defences as are available to them.
Without prejudice to that right, this criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed.
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-
/True Copy/
P.A to Judge
2 provisions across 2 enactments
VIJAYALAKSHMI
NEENU SHIHAB @ SUMAYYA
REETHA @ ASHA
STATE OF KERALA
THOMAS P JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court