2024 P Cr. LJ 1972
PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1185
KHALIDA BIBI and another versus The STATE and others---
Crl. Misc. No. 885-B of 2024
Ss. 371-A & 371-B--Selling and buying person for purposes of prostitution-Ball, grant of- Further inquiry---Petitioners were found in objectionable condition in a house when they were apprehended and a cash amount of Rs. 1500/- was recovered from female petitioner which she had allegedly received for prostitution---When a man and a woman were found busy in sexual intercourse in a brothel house, they could not be made subject of sections of P.P.C. added in the present case---Similarly, when a man was running a brothel, he would not be charged under S.371-A or 371- B, P.P.C, if he simply offered the services of a prostitute for sexual intercourse to a man, barring a situation when any person was actually found busy in a brothel house for sale, purchase or hiring etc. of a woman with the intent that she might be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful and immoral purpose, or knowing it to be likely that such person would at any time be employed or used for any such purpose- On receiving credible information Police could enter into places or resort of loose and disorderly characters without warrant and then depending upon the nature of offence they were authorized to initiate criminal action either through registration of FIR for an offence under St.371-A/371-B, P.P.C, or under the Punjab Suppression of Prostitution Ordinance, 1961, or through complaint under 5.203.c. Cr.P.C., for fornication or investigation with the permission of Magistrate for offences under S.294, P.P.C-In the case in hand both the petitioners were reportedly found in objectionable condition in a house when the police raided upon them, therefore, they could not be charged for offences under Ss. 371-A/371-B, P.P.C, but fom fornication under S.496-B, P.P.C if they were having sexua intercourse with each other and prosecution thereof would be initiaten through filing a complaint under S.203-C of Cr.P.C.-No Medico Legal Report was available which could support the act of recen intercourse, neither stained clothes nor any other forensic material wa collected from the place of occurrence---Even no linked-material wa made available to show that the female was a prostitute or the hous was being used as brothel, so as to attract provisions of the Punja Suppression of Prostitution Ordinance, 1961, against her-Moreover it was also a missing fact as to whether the house was a place of loom or disorderly characters to justify entry of police without a warran therefore, criminal liability of both the petitioners would be determine by Trial Court, who were at present not found connected with th offences of FIR-Said facts, prima facie, called for further inquin in the case of present petitioners falling within the ambit subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C-Bail petition was allowed, circumstances.
0 Comments