Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Nagar Macchindra Bhui, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 20/03/2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, which confirmed the order dated 23/01/2019 passed by the 2nd Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandharpur, sending the victim (Respondent No.2, referred to as XYZ) to a corrective institution (Shaskiya Mahila Rajya Gruh, Prerana Mahila Wasti Gruh, Baramati) for one year. The victim was rescued in a raid conducted by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Pandharpur, and FIR No.19 of 2019 was registered against 11 accused persons under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and the Indian Penal Code. The victim was initially kept with a social worker. The police filed an application before the magistrate to keep the victim in a corrective institution. However, the victim herself filed an application on 17/01/2019 requesting to go home. The magistrate recorded her statement on 19/01/2019, wherein she stated that she wanted to go home and would not repeat the mistake. Despite this, the magistrate ordered her detention for one year. The applicant, who is the father of the victim, appealed to the Sessions Court, which dismissed the appeal. The High Court noted that the magistrate and the appellate court failed to consider the victim's consent and best interest. The High Court quashed the orders and directed that the victim be released forthwith and handed over to her father, subject to the father executing a bond to ensure her proper care and that she appears before the trial court as required.
Headnote
A) Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Section 17 - Corrective Institution - Victim's Consent - The court held that before sending a victim to a corrective institution, the magistrate must consider the victim's consent and best interest. In this case, the victim expressed her desire to go home and not repeat the mistake, but the magistrate ordered her detention for one year without proper consideration. (Paras 3-5) B) Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Section 19 - Appeal - Appellate Court's Duty - The appellate court must independently assess the evidence and the victim's wishes. The Sessions Judge merely confirmed the magistrate's order without addressing the victim's statement. (Para 5) C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - Quashing of Orders - The High Court can exercise inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. The order sending the victim to a corrective institution was quashed as it was not in her best interest. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order sending the victim to a corrective institution for one year was valid under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, considering the victim's expressed desire to return home.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application, quashed the orders dated 20/03/2019 and 23/01/2019, and directed that the victim be released forthwith and handed over to her father, subject to the father executing a bond to ensure her proper care and appearance before the trial court as required.
Law Points
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act
- 1956
- Section 17
- Section 19
- Corrective Institution
- Victim's consent
- Best interest of victim
- Care and protection
