The victim turned into observed in a raid at an inn near Pandharpur. An FIR turned into registered with Pandharpur Taluka Police Station in opposition to 11 accused folks. The victim was rescued and quickly stored in custody of a social worker.
Thereafter, police filed an utility before the JMFC, Pandharpur praying to issue directions to keep the victim in a Corrective Institution i.E. Mahila Sudhargruh, Solapur for her care and protection.
However, applications have been filed on behalf of the victim and petitioner praying for the sufferer’s custody to be granted to the petitioner, who’s her “believed mom”. Although consistent with the prosecution, it changed into the petitioner who compelled the sufferer into prostitution.
JMFC directed the Probation Officer to make an inquiry beneath Section 17(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Accordingly, the probation officer after making inquiry submitted his report to the following which the JMFC rejected the two packages in an order dated January 23, 2019, and despatched the victim to Shaskiya Mahila Rajya Gruh, Prerana Mahila Wasti Gruh, Baramati, Dist. Pune for her care and safety for a duration of one year.
This choice became challenged before the Additional Sessions Judge however the task became dismissed. Thus, the present petition becomes filed.
Judgment
Advocate Satyavrat Joshi appeared on behalf of the petitioner and APP AR Patil appeared on behalf of the country.
Joshi contended that although the sufferer has nowhere stated that petitioner had compelled her into prostitution, yet both the Courts have erred in recording a reality that the petitioner had forced the victim into prostitution. Further, the Probation Officer, after taking into consideration various factors, in his report opined that the custody of the victim may be given to the petitioner, each the Courts beneath have disregarded the report of the probation workplace, Joshi stated.
The court docket tested submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the State. But earlier than that, the bench made positive observations about the petitioner herself-
“It seems that the petitioner herein posed her as an actual mother of the victim, and it was said before the discovered JMFC that the sufferer is her daughter. However, the learned JMFC, on interaction with the petitioner, observed that she is not the actual mother of the sufferer. It seems that the Petitioner informed before the found out JMFC that she did no longer provide delivery to Respondent No.2 – Victim XYZ, but she continues her on account that her youth. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has additionally taken notice of such behavior of the Petitioner in paragraph 12 of the impugned Judgment and order.”
“Victim being important can be despatched to the stated Corrective Institution against her desires. The discovered suggest for the Petitioner submits that Respondent
