Uttarakhand High Court
Vijay Kumar Gurung vs State Of Uttarakhand on 16 July, 2025
2025:UHC:6169
Reserved on:08.07.2025
Delivered on:16.07.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 137 of 2025
Vijay Kumar Gurung ......Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Presence:
Mrs. Manisha Bhandari, Mr. Dhruv Chandra, Mr. Pritish Arrya, Ms. Ishita
Dhaila and Mr. Shashwat Siddhant, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Girish Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A., with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal,
learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been filed under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024 (corresponding to
Section 482 Cr.P.C.) by the applicant, Vijay Kumar Gurung, seeking
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
1
Criminal Misc. Application No.137 of 2025-----Vijay Kumar Gurung vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6169
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
2
Criminal Misc. Application No.137 of 2025-----Vijay Kumar Gurung vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6169
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.
3
Criminal Misc. Application No.137 of 2025-----Vijay Kumar Gurung vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6169
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 its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.
4
Criminal Misc. Application No.137 of 2025-----Vijay Kumar Gurung vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6169
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.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
Dated: 16.07.2025
NR/
5
Criminal Misc. Application No.137 of 2025—–Vijay Kumar Gurung vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
[ad_1]
Source link