Allowed

Gagandeep Singh Aujla v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Oct 2024CRM-M/16924/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed an FIR registered under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act in 2008. The petition was filed after a 16-year delay where the challan had not been presented. The Court held that the delay violated the petitioner's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 155 dated 06.06.2008 under Sections 3/4 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and all proceedings therein were quashed.

Gagandeep Singh Aujla Vs State of Punjab and Others — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

232 CRM-M-16924-2016(O&M) Date of order: 25.10.2024

¶4

Gagandeep Singh Aujla

¶5

…..Petitioner(s)

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Punjab & Others

¶8

…..Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶10

Present:Mr. Mandeep Singh Sach d ev, Advocate Ms. Mehar Sachdev, Adv o cate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Rishu Madan, AAG P u njab.

¶12

***** Nidhi Gupta, J. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is file d

¶13

seeking qua s hing on merits of FIR No.15 5 dated 06.06.2018 registere d under Secti o ns 3/4 of Immoral Traffic Ac t at Police Station Sadar (no w Rama Man d i), Jalandhar; AND all other p roceedings in furtherance o f registration of FIR; further prayed that di r ections be issued to the SHO, Police Statio n Sadar (now Rama Mandi), Jal a ndhar, to present the challan in the Court in t he above-mentioned case within stipulated period.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FI R in the prese n t case was registered on 06.0 6 .2008 however, although mor e than 16 yea r s have passed yet challan has n ot been presented in the Cour t till date, an d charges have not been fram e d. Learned counsel relies upo n judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Madeshwardhari Singh & Another

¶15

SUNENA 2024.10.29 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶16

Page 2 of 7

¶17

Vs. State of Bihar” Law Finder Doc ID # 45656, to submit that in suc h situation, FI R is liable to be quashed qua the petitioner/accused.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits tha t in any even t , at the worst it can only be said that the petitioner was a customer at the raided premises. Admitte d ly, the petitioner was neithe r owner nor m anager of the said premises an d therefore, no offence is mad e out.

¶19

In compliance of last o r der dated 12.07.2024, learned State Couns e l files status report dated 23.10.2024 filed by way of affidavi t of Babande e p Singh, PPS, Assistant Commi s sioner of Police (Cantt), Polic e Commission e rate, Jalandhar, which is take n on record and a copy of th e same is sup p lied to the counsel opposite.

¶20

Learned State Counsel o n instructions submits that in the present case, upon secret information received, a raid was conducted upon Lilli Resort on GT Road, Jalandhar wh e re the petitioner was found i n room No.2 3 5 along with one other girl. It is submitted that seriou s allegations h ave been made against the pe t itioner, however, it is admitted that challan h as not yet been filed in the pr e sent case.

¶21

No other argument is ma d e on behalf of the parties.

¶22

I have heard learned cou n sel for the parties and peruse d

¶23

the case file in great detail.

¶24

Brief facts of the case ar e that present FIR No.155 dated

¶25

06.06.2008 u /s 3, 4 of the Immoral Traffic k ing Act was registered agains t

¶26

SUNENA 2024.10.29 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶27

Page 3 of 7

¶28

the Petition e r as well as other co-accused w herein it has been alleged tha t a secret inf o rmer told that in Hotel nam e d Lilly Resort situated at G.T . Road, Jalandhar, boys and girls have taken r o om and wrong addresses hav e been menti o ned. Therefore, the business of brothel is being run in th e Hotel i.e. Lill y Resort at G.T.Road and if the r aid is conducted then boys an d girls will be f ound in room no. 235, 349 and 350. The said rooms have been taken by th e boys and girls mentioning w rong addresses, therefore rai d should be c o nducted. On this information, Inspector Sarabjit Rai, the the n SHO of P.S S a dar, Jalandhar conducted raid a t Lilly Resort and Room No.23 5 was search e d, and a boy who identified as Gagandeep Singh (presen t petitioner) and a girl named Sweta was found. 9. In paras 8, 9 and 10 of t he above said status report, i t has been sta t ed as follows:-

¶29

“8. That during the investigati o n, the Manager of Lilli Resor t submitted an application to th e DIG, Jalandhar Range and o n the basis of same, investigatio n of FIR was transferred to SS P Kapurthala, who further appointed Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, SP(D), Kapurthala as investiga t ion officer in FIR. It is p ertinen t to mention here that the said of ficer in his report dated 15-07 - 2008 concluded that Inspect o r Sarabjit Rai had previousl y made a booking at Lilli Resor t for a friend's party on 31-03 - 2008, but the payment had n o t been made for the bookin g done on 20-04-2008 and when the manager of Lilli Resort sen t an employee to collect the p a yment from Inspector Sarabji t Rai, the Inspector felt insulted , leading to the registration o f the above-said FIR. Hence, the Investigation officer found th e registration of above-said FIR a s wrong.

¶30

SUNENA 2024.10.29 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶31

Page 4 of 7

¶32

9. That on the basis of findings o f the above-said officer, SHO o f Police Station Cantt, Jalandhar filed untraced report in the Ld. Trial Court on 19.07.2024 (sin c e the jurisdiction of FIR is no w lying within the territorial juris d iction of SHO of Police Statio n Cantt) and upon summoning t he Inspector Sarabjit Rai (No w Superintendent of Police), he d id not agree with the untrace d report and therefore, the Ld. T r ial Court rejected the untrace d report vide order dated 31.08. 2 024 with directions to conduc t f urther investigation.

¶33

10. That it is pertinent to menti o n here that on 25.09.2024, th e SHO of Police Station Cantt, J alandhar again filed untrace d report in the Ld. Court of JMI C , Jalandhar on 25.09.2024 an d the Ld. Trial Court fixed next d a te of hearing as 19.10.2024 fo r consideration.”

¶34

However, on 19.10.2024 , the Ld. Trial Court has furthe r adjourned t h e case and next date of hearing now is 30.11.2024 fixed fo r consideration. The petitioner had previou s ly filed a petition before thi s Court beari n g CRM-M-18941-2009 seekin g quashing of the present FIR. However, t h e same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order date d 03.12.2009 ( Annexure P-2) since the canc e llation report was likely to b e filed consid e ring the fact that subsequent investigation officer found th e registration o f the FIR as illegal and wrong. However, even after lapse of 7 more years, the said cancellation report w asn't filed in the present case ; and aggriev e d of the same, the petitione r has filed the present petitio n since neithe r the cancellation nor the final report was filed in the presen t

¶35

FIR.

¶36

SUNENA 2024.10.29 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶37

Page 5 of 7

¶38

It is relevant that the offence u/ss 3 and 4 of th e Immoral Trafficking Act is not attributed t owards the present Petitione r since Sectio n 3 of this Act deals with Punis h ment for keeping a brothel o r allowing premises to be used as a brothel since Petitioner is neither th e owner, tena n t, lessee, the occupier of the s a id premises nor the landlord o r an agent of t he same. Further, even Section 4 of the Act is not attributed t o the Petition e r since Petitioner has no income that is being derived from th e prostitution but was merely staying at the Hotel as a guest. As such, th e offence under Sections 3 & 4 of the Ac t is not made out against th e Petitioner.

¶39

It is further pertinent to m ention herein that Section 3 o f the Act is punishable with rigorous impriso n ment for a term not less than 2 years but which may extend to 3 years whereas Section 4 of this Act i s punishable w ith rigorous imprisonment w h ich may extend to 2 years. A s such, since the present FIR has been regist e red in the year 2008 i.e date d 06.06.2008, cognizance of the same is hit by the bar of limitation a s envisaged u n der Section 468 Cr.P.C. Accor d ing to Section 468 (2) (c), th e period of li m itation is 3 years since the said offences are punishable wit h imprisonme n t for a term not exceeding 3 y e ars. Therefore, as per statutor y bar of limita t ion as envisaged by Section 46 8 (2) (c), the Court of Ld. JMIC i s barred from taking cognizance in the present matter. 13. Even as per the law se t tled by the Hon’ble Suprem e Court in Madeshwardhari Singh supra in all criminal prosecutions, the righ t to a speedy public trial is now an inalienable fundamental right of th e

¶40

SUNENA 2024.10.29 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶41

Page 6 of 7

¶42

citizen under Article 21 of the Constitutio n of India. In the present case , where the F I R pertains to the year 2008, e v en after a lapse of 16 years, til l date even c h allan/final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C has not been presented and charges hav e not been framed in the matte r . Therefore, in such a situation , present FIR is liable to be quashed qua the Petitioner/Accused since th e Petitioner h a s a fundamental right to have a speedy trial. 14. A similar view has been taken by this Court in case titled as Mahesh Kumar versus State of Punjab Law Finder DOC ID # 45949,

¶43

wherein the FIR was quashed as the challa n was presented after 11.5 lon g years. This Court considered it to be v iolation of the constitutiona l guarantee o f a speedy trial as conte m plated under Article 21 o f Constitution of India.

¶44

The Hon'ble Supreme C o urt of India has also taken a similar view in a case titled as Sirajul & Ors versus The State of U.P & An Law Finder DOC ID # 689608 , wherein the H on'ble Apex Court had quashed the complai n t stating that even though the cases covered by statutory ba r can be quas h ed without any further enquir y , but cases not covered by th e statutory ba r can be quashed as well on th e grounds of violation of right o f speedy trial w hich has been held to part of A rticle 21 of the Constitution o f India having regard to the extent of delay, person responsible for delay an d other attending circumstances.

¶45

In view of the above u n controverted factual and lega l position, co n tinuance of the present FIR w o uld be a violation of the right s guaranteed t o the petitioner under the Constitution of India. Admittedly ,

¶46

SUNENA 2024.10.29 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶47

Page 7 of 7

¶48

untraced re p ort has been filed twice in t h e present case. 16 years hav e passed after the commission of the alleged o ffence by the petitioner. It is a clear violat i on of the constitutional g u arantee of speedy trial a s contemplat e d under Article 21 of the Consti t ution of India.

¶49

In view of the above, p r esent petition is allowed; an d FIR No.155 dated 06.06.2018 registered u nder Sections 3/4 of Immora l Traffic Act at Police Station Sadar (now Rama Mandi), Jalandhar; AND al l other proceedings in furtherance of reg i stration of the said FIR, ar e quashed qu a the petitioner.

¶50

Pending application(s) if a ny also stand(s) disposed of.

¶51

25.10.2024 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge

¶52

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶53

SUNENA 2024.10.29 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Gagandeep Singh Aujla v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gagandeep Singh Aujla v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurcharan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurdeep Kaur Vs Mohan Singh

Paramjit Kaur Vs Ravinder Singh

Randhir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rashpal Kaur Bhullar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Gurmeet Kaur Vs Simranjit Singh