FIR Against Massage Parlor Customers Quashed Due to Insufficient Evidence: Gujarat HC
In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of judicial scrutiny in criminal proceedings, the Gujarat High Court today quashed an FIR against the applicants in the case titled Jojo Thomas Kannappilly Versus State of Gujarat. The landmark decision, delivered by Honourable Mr. Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, revolved around the allegations under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, and Section 370(a)(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The court meticulously examined the application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which sought the quashing of the FIR for offences allegedly committed at a massage parlor in Surat. The applicants, claimed to be mere customers at the establishment, were previously implicated under various sections of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and IPC.
In his judgment, Justice Suthar remarked, “It appears from the papers on record and the evidence of witnesses that the present applicants were only customers and were not involved in any category mentioned under the Prevention Act.” This observation played a pivotal role in determining the outcome of the case.
The Court’s analysis revealed that the FIR did not disclose any ingredients of the alleged criminal offence against the applicants, thus constituting an abuse of the process of law. Emphasizing the principles guiding the exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC, Justice Suthar cited several precedents, including the landmark judgments in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
Legal experts have lauded the Court’s decision as a testament to the meticulous application of legal principles. By distinguishing the roles and liabilities of customers in such cases, the judgment provides clarity on the applicability of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.
Date of Decision: 15/12/2023
JOJO THOMAS KANNAPPILLY Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
