# Smt.Lata v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1225
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-11-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 30421 of 2010
- **Bench:** Shri Kant Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-lata-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41752
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Immoral Traffic(Prevention) Act 1956Section 3/4/5/6-charge sheet challenged
on ground the FIR lodged by private
person in civil Police station and not by
special Police officer-can not be basis for
Trail-held-misconceived in absence of
procedure for lodging F.R. And ITP Act,
provision of section 154 Cr. P.C. Fully
applicable-moreover if the informant tries
to get special Police officer appointedevery possibility of moving the accused
and girls to unknown place-can not
denied once cognizable offence disclosed
from
FIR
locustandi
of
informant
immaterial-'No' interference called for.

Held: Para 6 & 7

The ITP Act is silent as to how the FIR is
to be lodged. It has nowhere provided in
the ITP Act that FIR must be lodged by
the Special Police Officer. In absence of
specific provisions in this regard in the
said Act, it can be safely held with the aid
of section 5 of the Code that the
provisions of section 154 of the Code in
regard to lodging of the FIR regarding
commission of an offence under the ITP
Act are fully applicable. It is also well
settled that any person can lodge the FIR
regarding commission of a cognizable
offence whether he has any interest in
the matter or not. The question of locus in
such matters does not arise. However, if
the relevant law requires lodging of an
FIR by a particular person, then and then
alone, the question of locus has a
relevancy otherwise not. As the ITP Act is
silent as to how the FIR is to be lodged,
the FIR lodged by a private person,
namely, Smt. Atul Sharma cannot be
treated as not maintainable, and as such
the proceedings held in pursuance thereof
are not in any way without jurisdiction.

The present case, according to the FIR, is
that the complainant got an information
that one person along with three minor
girls was present at the Bus Stand for
taking the girls to some unknown place.
The complainant then went to the Bus
Stand and found that in the waiting hall
three minor girls and one male person
had been indulged in gossip. It is also
alleged that the minor girls were to be
taken to New Delhi for prostitution and
this fact was stated by all the minor girls
on interrogation. In case, the informant,
instead of lodging the FIR, had tried to
contact Special Police Officer for lodging
the FIR, there was every possibility of
moving the accused and girls from the
place of occurrence to some unknown
place and in that situation no action could
be taken against them. In this view of the
matter, lodging of the FIR by the
complainant was not, in any way, against
the law.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1962 SC 63:(1962) 1 Cr LJ 106

## Text

3 All] Smt.Lata V. State of U.P. and another
1225
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.11.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHRI KANT TRIPATHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 30421 of 2010

Smt. Lata

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.and another ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manu Khare

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

Immoral Traffic(Prevention) Act 1956Section 3/4/5/6-charge sheet challenged
on ground the FIR lodged by private
person in civil Police station and not by
special Police officer-can not be basis for
Trail-held-misconceived in absence of
procedure for lodging F.R. And ITP Act,
provision of section 154 Cr. P.C. Fully
applicable-moreover if the informant tries
to get special Police officer appointedevery possibility of moving the accused
and girls to unknown place-can not
denied once cognizable offence disclosed
from
FIR
locustandi
of
informant
immaterial-'No' interference called for.

Held: Para 6 & 7

The ITP Act is silent as to how the FIR is
to be lodged. It has nowhere provided in
the ITP Act that FIR must be lodged by
the Special Police Officer. In absence of
specific provisions in this regard in the
said Act, it can be safely held with the aid
of section 5 of the Code that the
provisions of section 154 of the Code in
regard to lodging of the FIR regarding
commission of an offence under the ITP
Act are fully applicable. It is also well
settled that any person can lodge the FIR
regarding commission of a cognizable
offence whether he has any interest in
the matter or not. The question of locus in
such matters does not arise. However, if
the relevant law requires lodging of an
FIR by a particular person, then and then
alone, the question of locus has a
relevancy otherwise not. As the ITP Act is
silent as to how the FIR is to be lodged,
the FIR lodged by a private person,
namely, Smt. Atul Sharma cannot be
treated as not maintainable, and as such
the proceedings held in pursuance thereof
are not in any way without jurisdiction.

The present case, according to the FIR, is
that the complainant got an information
that one person along with three minor
girls was present at the Bus Stand for
taking the girls to some unknown place.
The complainant then went to the Bus
Stand and found that in the waiting hall
three minor girls and one male person
had been indulged in gossip. It is also
alleged that the minor girls were to be
taken to New Delhi for prostitution and
this fact was stated by all the minor girls
on interrogation. In case, the informant,
instead of lodging the FIR, had tried to
contact Special Police Officer for lodging
the FIR, there was every possibility of
moving the accused and girls from the
place of occurrence to some unknown
place and in that situation no action could
be taken against them. In this view of the
matter, lodging of the FIR by the
complainant was not, in any way, against
the law.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1962 SC 63:(1962) 1 Cr LJ 106

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Manu Khare for the
applicant
and
the
learned AGA
for
respondent no. 1 and perused the record.

2. This is a petition under section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
"the Code") for quashing the charge sheet
filed in Case Crime No. 206 of 2010 under
sections 3/4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic
1226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
(Prevention) Act, 1956 (in short "the ITP
Act"), P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Meerut as
well as the order dated 11.06.2010 whereby
the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Meerut took cognizance of the offences.

3. Mr. Manu Khare submitted that the
FIR lodged by Smt. Atul Sharma, Secretary,
Sankalp (a social organization) was not
maintainable in view of the fact that only the
Special Police Officer had the power to deal
with the matter under the Act and it was the
Special Police Officer, who could lodge the
FIR, therefore, the FIR lodged by a private
person was not maintainable and as such the
entire investigation undertaken in pursuance
of that FIR was a futile exercise, therefore,
the charge sheet as well as the proceeding of
the criminal case initiated in pursuance of the
charge sheet are liable to be quashed.

4. In this connection Mr. Khare
referred to the provisions of Sections 13, 14,
15 and 16 of the Act and contended that
various provisions of the Act is a complete
Code with respect to the offences punishable
under the ITP Act. Mr. Khare further
submitted that section 5 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code")
provides that all the offences under the
Indian Penal Code as well as under any other
law are to be investigated, inquired into, tried
and otherwise dealt with according to the
provisions of the Code but the position
would be different, if the local or special law
has specific provisions providing as to how
the offences under the concerned law are to
be investigated, inquired into, tried or
otherwise dealt with and in that situation the
matter has to be dealt with according to that
law. Mr. Khare next submitted that in view of
the fact that the ITP Act provides as to how
the investigations, inquiries, trials or other
matters are dealt with, the provisions of the
Code are not applicable. In support of this
submission Mr. Khare placed reliance on
Delhi Administration v Ram Singh (1962)
2 SCR 694: AIR 1962 SC 63:(1962) 1 Cr
LJ 106. In that case the majority view was
expressed in paragraphs 19, 22 and 24 as
follows:

"19. According to section 13 of the Act,
'there shall be, for each area to be specified
by the State Government, a special police
officer appointed by or on behalf of that
Government for dealing with offences under
the Act in that area'. The expression 'dealing
with offences' is of wide import and will
include any act which the police has to do in
connection with the offences under the Act.
In this connection, we have been referred to
the provisions of section 5 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, which reads:

(1) "All offences under the Indian Penal
Code shall be investigated, inquired into,
tried, and otherwise dealt with according to
the provisions hereinafter contained.

2) All offences under any other law
shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and
otherwise dealt with according to the same
provisions, but subject to any enactment for
the time being in force regulating the manner
or place of investigating, inquiring into,
trying or otherwise dealing with such
offences."

It is submitted that the expression 'dealt
with' must mean something which is not
included in investigation, inquiry or trial.
This does not necessarily follow from the
provisions of this section. The word
,otherwise' points to the fact that the
expression 'dealt with' is all comprehensive,
and that investigation, inquiry and trial were
some aspects of 'dealing with' the offences.
Further, according to sub-section. (3) of
section 13, the special police officer is to be
3 All] Smt.Lata V. State of U.P. and another
1227
assisted, for the efficient discharge of his
functions in relation to offences under this
Act, by a number of subordinate police
officers and will be advised by a non-official
advisory body. The expression 'functions in
relation to offences' do include his functions
connected with the investigation of the
offences. There is no reason to exclude such
functions from the functions contemplated by
sub-section. (3).

..............

22. If the power of the special police
officer to deal with the offences under the
Act, and therefore to investigate into the
offences, be not held exclusive, there can be
then two investigations carried on by two
different agencies, one by the special police
officer and the other by the ordinary police.
It is easy to imagine the difficulties which
such duplication of proceedings can lead to.
There is nothing in the Act to co-ordinate the
activities of the regular police with respect to
cognizable offences under the Act and those
of the special police officer.

.......

24. We are therefore of opinion that the
special police officer is competent to
investigate and that he and his assistant
police officers are the only persons
competent to investigate offences under the
Act and that police officers not specially
appointed as special police officers cannot
investigate the offences under the Act even
though they are cognizable offences. The
result is that this appeal by the Delhi
Administration
fails
and
is
hereby
dismissed."

5. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court
considered the question whether a police
officer, who is neither a special police officer
under the ITP Act, nor a police officer
subordinate to a special police officer, can
validly investigate the offences under the
aforesaid Act and held that only the Special
Police Officer appointed under the ITP Act
has power to hold investigation in regard to
an offence punishable under the aforesaid
Act. Therefore, a police officer who has not
been appointed as special police officer,
cannot investigate the offence under the ITP
Act, even though the offences are cognizable
offences. However, according to section
13(3)(a) of the Act, the State Government
has power to depute a subordinate police
officer, in such number as may be considered
fit, for assisting the special police officer and
such subordinate police officer may include
even woman police officers. But taking of
assistance from a subordinate police officer
does not in any way affect such powers of
the special police officer. In the aforesaid
case, the point as to who is competent to
lodge the FIR in regard to an offence
punishable under the ITP Act was not
involved nor answered. According to the
scheme of the ITP Act, the main function of
the Special Police Officer is to hold the
investigation and to carry out searches and
seizures
etc.
and
other
incidental
proceedings. Therefore, the submission that
only the Special Police Officer had locus to
lodge the FIR, does not appear to be tenable
in law.

6. The ITP Act is silent as to how the
FIR is to be lodged. It has nowhere provided
in the ITP Act that FIR must be lodged by the
Special Police Officer. In absence of specific
provisions in this regard in the said Act, it
can be safely held with the aid of section 5 of
the Code that the provisions of section 154 of
the Code in regard to lodging of the FIR
regarding commission of an offence under
the ITP Act are fully applicable. It is also
well settled that any person can lodge the
1228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
FIR regarding commission of a cognizable
offence whether he has any interest in the
matter or not. The question of locus in such
matters does not arise. However, if the
relevant law requires lodging of an FIR by a
particular person, then and then alone, the
question of locus has a relevancy otherwise
not. As the ITP Act is silent as to how the
FIR is to be lodged, the FIR lodged by a
private person, namely, Smt. Atul Sharma
cannot be treated as not maintainable, and as
such the proceedings held in pursuance
thereof are not in any way without
jurisdiction.

7. The present case, according to the
FIR, is that the complainant got an
information that one person along with three
minor girls was present at the Bus Stand for
taking the girls to some unknown place. The
complainant then went to the Bus Stand and
found that in the waiting hall three minor
girls and one male person had been indulged
in gossip. It is also alleged that the minor
girls were to be taken to New Delhi for
prostitution and this fact was stated by all the
minor girls on interrogation. In case, the
informant, instead of lodging the FIR, had
tried to contact Special Police Officer for
lodging the FIR, there was every possibility
of moving the accused and girls from the
place of occurrence to some unknown place
and in that situation no action could be taken
against them. In this view of the matter,
lodging of the FIR by the complainant was
not, in any way, against the law.

8. In my opinion, the charge sheet
cannot be quashed only on the ground that
the FIR was lodged by a private person.

9. In this case, the investigation was
done by a Special Police Officer and the
charge sheet has been filed by him, on the
basis of the materials collected during the
investigation, and from such materials, a
prima facie case is made out against the
applicant, therefore, I do not consider it
proper to interfere with the charge sheet and
the proceeding of the criminal case.

10. The petition has no merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.09.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE F.I. REBELLO, C.J.
THE HON'BLE V.K. SHUKLA, J.
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34179 of 2010

Smt. Maya Dixit and others ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Shri S.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Shri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava
Shri Mukesh Prasad
Shri Arvind Srivastava
Shri Sanjeev Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shri S.G. Hasnain
Addl. Advocate General
Shri Alok Kumar Singh
Standing Counsel

Constitution of India Art.226-practiced
Procedure-writ
jurisdiction-reference
made by judge exceeding power of the
Bench of PIL-against the verdict of Apex
Court-on basis of interim order-without
hearing both parties-the G.O. Prohibiting
use of machine in mining operations-in
compliance of interim order-itself under
challenge
before
Apex
Court-heldreference itself not maintainable-require
no further discussion.