State of Uttarakhand v. Mrs. Manisha Bhandari, Mr. Dhruv Chandra, Mr. Pritish Arrya, Ms. Ishita

quashing of FIR No. 620 of 2024 dated 29.09.2024, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, Dehradun, under Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

2. It is asserted by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR is based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations and does not disclose any cognizable offence. It is submitted that continuation of proceedings would constitute abuse of process of law and that this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice.

3. As per the FIR, on 29.09.2024, a raid was conducted at Line Wood Spa Centre, KPJ Tower, near Kamla Palace T-Point, Dehradun, by a team Criminal Misc. Application No.137 of 2025-----Vijay Kumar Gurung vs State of Uttarakhand 1 Ashish Naithani J. led by Lady Sub-Inspector Kalpana Pandey of the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit. Several individuals, including the applicant, were allegedly found in compromising positions in private rooms with women. Articles including explicit items and cash were recovered from the premises.

4. The premises were allegedly used for prostitution. The applicant was stated to be present as a customer who had paid money for "additional services." Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded from law enforcement personnel and alleged victims, supporting the State’s version. A chargesheet has been filed, implicating the applicant under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Act.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated and that the FIR is devoid of any specific allegations that would attract the provisions of Sections 5, 6, or 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

6. It is argued that mere presence of the applicant at the spa does not establish culpability, particularly in the absence of independent public witnesses or substantive evidence of inducement, procurement, or exploitation.

7. It is further submitted that the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 15(2) of the Act were not complied with, as the raid was conducted without two respectable, independent witnesses from the locality. The counsel also emphasised that there is no criminal antecedent against the applicant and that no prima facie case is made out in the FIR or the accompanying materials.

8. Citing the decision by High court of judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Dinesh Tiwari @ Dhirendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2024: AHC-LKO:15780), the applicant contended that mere presence at the scene of the raid is insufficient to impute criminal liability Criminal Misc. Application No.137 of 2025-----Vijay Kumar Gurung vs State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J. without corroborating evidence. The applicant has already been granted regular bail by the Learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, on 09.10.2024, further reinforcing the absence of credible evidence against him.

9. Opposing the application, learned Government Advocate representing the State, submitted that the applicant was caught red-handed during the raid in a compromising position with a woman, and was directly participating in the immoral activities taking place at the spa.

10. It is argued that statements from several witnesses including law enforcement officials namely Inspector Pradeep Pant, Lady Constable Prema Bisht (Anti Human Trafficking Cell), Lady Constable Raina Rawat and others, victims, and the Anil Kumar Jaiswal (owner of the building), clearly support the State’s version and establish the applicant’s presence and role.

11. The State further contends that customers who knowingly engage in the purchase or exploitation of trafficked persons can also be prosecuted under Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Act. The FIR and chargesheet demonstrate sufficient material to proceed against the applicant, and the application under Section 528 BNSS amounts to an attempt to derail lawful investigation and prosecution.

12. The State also argues that any alleged procedural irregularities, such as absence of local witnesses during the raid, are matters of evidence and should be decided at the stage of trial, not while considering quashing. According to the State,the investigative process, has been conducted lawfully, and the continuation of proceedings is necessary for the due course of justice. Criminal Misc. Application No.137 of 2025-----Vijay Kumar Gurung vs State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J.

13. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) must be exercised sparingly and only where the FIR fails to disclose any cognizable offence or where the allegations are manifestly absurd or improbable.

14. In the present case, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. from officials and rescued victims substantiate the State’s version and provide prima facie material. The applicant was found at the premises and is not merely a passive bystander; the allegations involve payment for services in a suspected brothel. These facts do not place the case within the exceptional categories warranting quashing at the threshold.

15. The fact that the applicant has been granted bail does not, by itself, negate the existence of a prima facie case. The evidentiary sufficiency of the material is a matter to be examined at the stage of trial.

16. At this stage, this Court is not to conduct a roving inquiry or assess the reliability of the material collected. The presence of some prima facie material in the chargesheet, supported by witness statements, dissuades this Court from exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. Criminal Misc. Application No.137 of 2025-----Vijay Kumar Gurung vs State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J. ORDER In view of the foregoing, this Court finds no merit in the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application. Accordingly, Criminal Misc. Application No. 137 of 2025 filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2024, for quashing FIR No. 620 of 2024 dated 29.09.2024, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, Dehradun, is hereby dismissed. Dated: 16.07.2025 NR/ (Ashish Naithani, J.) Criminal Misc. Application No.137 of 2025-----Vijay Kumar Gurung vs State of Uttarakhand 5 Ashish Naithani J.