Brothel Customer Can T Be Prosecuted Under Immoral Traffic Prevention Act Hc
H
Hindustan TimesVerified Publisher
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 Ga 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...
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.
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.”