IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Mrs. Swathi, D/o. Venkappa. M. – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, Rep. By SPP, High Court Of Karnataka and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 807 Of 2024
Decided On : 10-06-024
Prostitution - Immoral Traffic Prevention Act - Section 5 - The court interpreted Section 5 of the Act, emphasizing that it does not penalize victims of prostitution, but rather those who exploit them, leading to the quashing of proceedings against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of being transported for prostitution, but claimed to be a victim. The police intercepted a vehicle transporting her and others for this purpose, leading to charges under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was a victim of prostitution and that prosecuting her under Section 5 of the Act would constitute an abuse of the legal process, as the Act does not punish victims.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, as a victim of prostitution, can be prosecuted under Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act does not intend to punish victims of prostitution, but rather those who exploit them, thus quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
Result: The proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
ORDER :
(M. Nagaprasanna, J.) :
The petitioner/accused No.8 is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.1397/2013 pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura arising out of crime in Crime No.16/2013 registered for offence punishable under Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (‘the Act’ for short)
2. Heard Sri Kumara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesh, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
3. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The fulcrum of the complaint is that on 13.01.2013 the Police Sub-Inspector attached to the crime wing of Kundapura Police Station was in the course of investigation in Crime No.13/2013 received an information that some girls are being illegally transported from Udupi to Goa in a tempo traveller bearing registration No.KA 21 A 2088 for the purpose of putting them in the business of prostitution. The vehicle was intercepted in National High Way 66. It is after such interception, the facts emerge that accused No.1 along with accused No.9 were taking the petitioner/accused No.8 and others for engaging them in the business of prostitution by paying them Rs.10,000/- each. On the basis of the said incident, a crime comes to be registered and the Police after investigation file a charge sheet against all the accused including the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.8. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act against the petitioner along with others and registers C.C.No.1397 of 2013.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner is the victim of prostitution at the hands of other accused and, therefore, the petitioner should not be permitted to be prosecuted. The learned counsel has projected several legal lacunae to buttress his submission that the entire proceedings are illegal.
5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would refute the submissions to contend that the case is now 10 years old and the petitioner should not now be permitted to knock at the doors of this Court even if she is a victim. She should come out clean in a trial. He would seek dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was being transported for the purpose of engaging her in the business of prostitution is a matter of record. The allegation against the petitioner is one punishable under Section 5 of the Act. Section 5 of the Act reads as follows:
(a) procures or attempts to procure a person, whether with or without his consent, for the purpose of prostitution; or
(b) induces a person to go from any place, with the intent that he may for the purpose of prostitution become the inmate of, or frequent, a brothel; or
(c) takes or attempts to take a person, or causes a person to be taken, from one place to another with a view to his carrying on, or being brought up to carry on prostitution; or
(d) causes or induces a person to carry on prostitution;
shall be punishable on conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than three years and not more than seven years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and if any offence under this sub-section is committed against the will of any person, the punishment of imprisonment for a term of seven years shall extend to imprisonment for a term of fourteen years:
Provided that if the person in respect of whom an offence committed under this sub- section,—
(i) is a child, the punishment provided under this sub-section shall extend to rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years but may extend to life; and
(ii) is a minor, the punishment provided under this sub-section s
Victims of prostitution cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, as the law targets those who exploit them.
A customer in a brothel can be prosecuted under Section 5(1)(d) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, as they induce the act of prostitution.
A customer cannot be criminally liable under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act unless actively involved in inducement or procurement.
Customers cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act without evidence of trafficking, but may be liable under Section 370(A)(2) IPC if they had reason to believe victims were tra....
A customer who pays for procuring a girl for prostitution can be charged under sections 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
The act of visiting a sex worker as a customer does not constitute an offence under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, according to established legal precedents.
A customer found in a brothel cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act unless involved in managing or facilitating prostitution.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.