Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nurjamman Lokman Lashkar, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, which confirmed the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur, sending the victim (XYZ) to a protective home for one year. The petitioner claimed to be the husband of the victim. A complaint was filed against Laxman Mane and others under Sections 370(1)(2)(3), 370A(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3,4,5,6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. A raid was conducted at Hotel Shri Vitthal Lodge, Solapur, and the victim was rescued. The petitioner filed an application for custody of the victim before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The trial court recorded statements of both the petitioner and the victim but found inconsistencies regarding their marriage. The petitioner did not produce any marriage document or proof of residence. The trial court also called for a Probation Officer's report and a medical report. The Probation Officer raised doubts about the petitioner's capability to take care of the victim. The trial court sent the victim to Government Sudhar Gruh, Maze Maher, Mundhawa, Pune for one year. The petitioner appealed, but the appeal was dismissed. The High Court considered the victim's statement that she wanted to go with her husband and that she was not willing to stay in the protective home. The court held that the victim's consent was paramount and allowed the petition, directing the victim's release to her husband's custody subject to conditions including regular reporting to the police and not leaving the jurisdiction without permission.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Custody of Victim - Victim's Consent - The court considered whether the victim, who was rescued from a brothel, should be sent to a protective home or released to her husband. The court held that the victim's consent and her statement that she wanted to go with her husband were crucial. The court allowed the petition and directed the victim's release to her husband's custody, subject to conditions. (Paras 1-12) B) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 370, 370A - Trafficking - The case involved allegations of trafficking and prostitution. The court noted that the victim had been compelled into prostitution but her subsequent statement indicated she wished to live with her husband. The court allowed custody to the husband. (Paras 3-12) C) Evidence - Probation Officer Report - Medical Report - The trial court had relied on the Probation Officer's report which raised doubts about the petitioner's capability. However, the High Court found that the victim's consent and her statement outweighed those doubts. (Paras 4-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the victim in a case under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and IPC should be sent to a protective home or released to the custody of her husband.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The victim XYZ is directed to be released in the custody of the petitioner subject to conditions: (i) The petitioner shall produce the victim before the Investigating Officer once a month; (ii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission; (iii) The petitioner shall ensure the victim's safety and well-being.
Law Points
- Victim's consent
- custody of victim
- rehabilitation
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act
- 1956
- Sections 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Indian Penal Code Sections 370
- 370A
- Probation Officer report
- medical report
- age determination
