"Judiciary Intervenes: Petitioner’s Trust Activities Deemed Harmful to Public Morality"

The petitioner, Raja Murrugan, filed two petitions: a criminal original petition for quashing the FIR lodged against him alleging false accusations and harassment by the police, and a writ petition seeking protection for his trust, "Friends For Ever Trust," which provides services including consensual sexual activities.

Raja Murrugan v. The SP Nagercoil Kanyakumari District & 2 others

Crl. Pet. 9399/2024 & WP 13963/2024

Before Madras High Court

Heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Pugalendhi J

Facts:

1. The petitioner claims to be the founder of "Friends For Ever Trust," registered under Reg.No.147 of 2022, promoting adult recreation and related activities, including oil baths and consensual sex services.
2. On 17.02.2024, the police searched the trust premises, arrested the petitioner, and registered a case under various sections of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
3. The petitioner was arrested and later released on bail. He alleges that the case was orchestrated by his ex-wife using a minor girl to frame him.

Legal Issue: Whether the activities conducted by the petitioner's trust constitute legal consensual services or illegal activities under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and POCSO Act.

Points of Arguments

Petitioner's arguments- The petitioner-in-person vigorously defended actions as consensual and well within the bounds of privacy. The petitioner submitted that the activities of the "Friends For Ever Trust" were lawful and did not constitute a criminal offense.

1. Consensual and Legal: The petitioner maintained that the activities involved consenting adults and were conducted within a framework of trust. He argued that these private interactions should not be subject to state interference or criminalization.
2. Privacy Rights: Citing the Indian Constitution’s recognition of the Right to Privacy, the petitioner contended that their personal liberty included the freedom to make choices—specifically, engaging in consensual activities with other adults. He argued that the state’s actions is an infringement on his fundamental right.
3. False Complaint Allegations: The petitioner further claimed that the police action stemmed from a false complaint orchestrated by his ex-wife. He challenged the legitimacy of the charges and emphasized the need for a fair investigation.
4. Consensual Nature of Activities: The petitioner asserted that the trust provided a platform for consenting adults to engage in relationships and activities of their choice. He argued that since all activities were consensual and among adults, they fell within the realm of personal freedom and should not be criminalized.
5. Absence of Illegal Actions: The petitioner maintained that there was no evidence of illegal actions, exploitation, or coercion in the trust's activities. He emphasized that the trust was not involved in any activities that could be classified as criminal under Indian law, such as trafficking, forced labor, or any other form of exploitation.

Argument of the State

1. Legitimate Investigation: The State justified initiating the investigation based on credible information pointing to potential illegal activities within the “Friends For Ever Trust.”
2. Concerns of Illegality: Despite the trust’s claims of operating within legal bounds, serious concerns arose. Allegations hinted at activities that might breach Indian laws, including immoral trafficking or exploitation.
3. Public Interest and Protection: The State underscored its duty to safeguard the public interest and prevent harm to societal morals. The investigation aimed to shield vulnerable individuals and maintain order.
4. Criminal Proceedings Justified: Filing the FIR and pursuing criminal proceedings were grounded in prima facie evidence gathered during the investigation. Authorities acted to uphold the law.
5. No Fundamental Rights Violation: The State refuted any infringement on the petitioner’s fundamental rights. Privacy and personal liberty, they argued, don’t shield illegal activities or actions contrary to public welfare.

Court's Observation

1. The court expressed shock at the petitioner's claim of running a brothel under the guise of a trust and his purported status as an advocate. The allegations involved immoral trafficking and potential exploitation of women under the guise of running a charitable trust, which is a serious offense. The nature of the allegations, if proven true, could indicate severe misconduct and abuse of trust, as well as violations of legal and moral standards.
2. The court noted the discrepancies in the petitioner's statements and the seriousness of the allegations involving a minor.
3. The court emphasized the need for maintaining moral sanctity and preventing exploitation under the guise of consensual activities.
4. The court was concerned about the actual activities carried out by the "Friends For Ever Trust." Although the trust was purported to be involved in charitable activities, there were serious allegations suggesting that the trust's operations may have included illegal activities. The court likely found it disturbing that such activities could be taking place under the cover of a charitable organization, which generally enjoys a certain level of public trust and immunity.
5. The court was shocked by the implications of the case for public morality and the enforcement of laws protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation. The potential involvement of trust in illegal activities, especially one that may exploit vulnerable women, raises significant concerns about the protection of societal values and the effectiveness of law enforcement.

Seema Bhatnagar