Criminal Original Petition filed to quash an FIR under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The High Court recorded submissions from both sides regarding bail and investigation needs and subsequently disposed of the petition without granting specific relief.
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 JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.18907 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.NOs.10391,10393 &10394 of 2021
G.Dhinesh
...Petitioner
Versus
State represented by the Inspector of Police Anti-Vice Squad-2 Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002. (Crime No.11 of 2021) ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of F.I.R in Crime No.11 of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Anti-Vice Squad-2, Chennai-2 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner who is accused in Crime No.11 of 2021, for offences under section 3(2)(a), 4(1), 5(1)(a), 5(1)(d) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, has filed this quash application.
2.The admitted case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is only a customer and on that premise, he went to the spa center, wherein immoral activities taken place. In the remand report, the same has been recorded, which is also found in the bail order of the petitioner, as observed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in paragraph 4, which reads as follows:-
"Even as per the remand report, the petitioner was a customer of the massage center. He is in custody from 17.09.2021. Considering the duration of custody and the fact that he is the customer to the center, this court is inclined
to grant bail."
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the case has been registered only on 17.09.2021 and the investigation in this case has commenced recently. He further submitted that the contention of the petitioner would be considered. If the petitioner is not required further in this case, appropriate steps would be taken depending upon the materials collected. He further submitted that the mobile phone is required for the investigation, wherein the petitioners contacted with other persons and other incriminating materials are to be verified and after verification, if it is not required for investigation, the same would be returned to the petitioner.
5.Recording the submissions made on both sides, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Connected M.P's are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mpl/nr
To
2. The Public Prosecutor,
+1cc to Mr.R.Baskaradoss, Advocate, S.R.No.56420
CRL.O.P.No.18907 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.10391,10393 &10394 of 2021
PMK(CO) RGA(10/12/2021)
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini rep. by her power of attorney agent T.Karunadas v. K.NatarajanReferred¶18
Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini rep. by her power of attorney agent T.Karunadas v. K.Natarajan
S.Rangaraj vs. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai CityReferred¶18
S.Rangaraj vs. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City
2 provisions across 2 enactments
G. Dhinesh
State
M. Nirmal Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
M. Nirmal Kumar
Parties & counsel
