PRAYAGRAJ The Allahabad high court has held that a man who visits a brothel as a customer cannot be prosecuted under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, merely for paying money for personal gratification.
A bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary observed: “If a person visits a brothel as a customer, then at the most, he may be procuring a prostitute to satisfy his personal lust, but not for the ‘purpose of prostitution’ as defined under the Act (which requires commercial exploitation). Therefore, a customer who pays money for gratification cannot be prosecuted under Section 3, 4, 5, or 7 of the Act.”
After information that women were engaged in sex trade at a house in Ghaziabad, the police raided the premises on December 31, 2023, and apprehended 16 people, including nine women. The women stated that they paid a share of their earnings to the man in whose house they were found. An FIR was lodged the same day and a charge sheet submitted under Sections 3,4,5 and 7 of the Act.
The applicant, one of the persons charge-sheeted, approached the high court under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the proceedings, the charge sheet and the summoning order.
{{/usCountry}}The applicant, one of the persons charge-sheeted, approached the high court under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the proceedings, the charge sheet and the summoning order.
{{/usCountry}}The court allowed the application filed by the man and quashed the charge sheet and criminal proceedings against him.
The applicant was charged under Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the ITPA. The high court found these charges legally unsustainable for a customer as they were related to running and management of a brothel.
The court, in its order dated August 11, said: “Perusal of the record shows that the applicant was merely a customer and he had come to satisfy his personal lust after paying the money and not for the purpose of prostitution and therefore the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, are not attracted against the applicant, thus continuance of the proceedings against the accused applicant, would amount to sheer misuse of the process of court.”