JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Accused/Petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order
dated 3.12.2018, passed in Session Trial No.14/2018, by II Addl.
Sessions Judge, Niwari, District Tikamgarh, whereby learned ASJ
framed the charge against the accused/petitioner under Section 370
of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for short).
(2.)The facts of the case in brief are that on 2.6.2017, Sub Divisional Officer (P) Prithvipur, received information that the act of
prostitution is going on in the Residency Hotel at Prithvipur.
Thereafter, he reached on the spot with other police officials. He
found that accused/petitioner was involved in prostitution activities
with another co-accused. Thereafter, he seized the amount and
other articles from the accused/petitioner and other co-accused. He
found that accused/petitioner and other co-accused are involved in
prostitution. Accused/petitioner and other co-accused were arrested,
FIR was lodged under Section 370 read with Section 34 of IPC and
Sections, 3, 4, 5, 6 of Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956.
After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the
accused/petitioner under Section 370 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed the charge against the
accused/petitioner under Section 370(2) of IPC.
(3.)Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that learned Court below framed the charge under Section 370(2) of IPC
is contrary to law. Learned Court below has committed gross error
of law in framing charge against the accused/petitioner. As per the
prosecution story, accused/petitioner was found to be involved in
commission of offence and she was in a room of hotel with two
other co-accused persons, namely, Govind and Gyan Chand.
Accused/petitioner was caught in a suspicion condition while doing
prostitution. Thus, as per the prosecution case itself present
accused/petitioner was not involved in trafficking of person rather
she has been subjected to the trafficking for the purpose enshrined
under Section 370(1) of IPC. In such circumstance, no charge can
be framed against the accused/petitioner under Section 370(2) of
IPC. So, learned Court below committed a gross error of law in
framing charge against the present accused/petitioner. So, he prays
for setting aside the impugned order and discharging of accused/
petitioner from the charge under Section 370(2) of IPC.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.