A child rescued under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act must be treated as a victim needing care, not returned to a parent with allegations of exploitation.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner – mother of the victim girl is before this Court calling in question an order dated 15.11.2025, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-II, Benglauru Rural District, whereby, an interlocutory application filed by the petitioner under Section 17(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’ for short), seeking custody of her daughter in Crime No.395/2025, comes to be rejected.

2. Heard Sri Gireesha R.J., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. The petitioner is said to be the mother of the victim child, who was rescued from a lodge, which was running a prostitution racket. The State then keeps the victim girl in the Child Welfare Home. The petitioner - mother of the victim files an application before the concerned Court under Section 17(2) of the Act, seeking custody of her daughter on the score that her daughter has now attained 18 years of age. Once the minor girl attains the age of 18, the daughter cannot be kept in the Child Welfare Home and she the daughter has to be handed over to the parents, one of whom is the petitioner, the mother of the victim. The concerned Court after rendering detailed reasons, rejected the said application on the score that the daughter was forced to prostitution by the petitioner – mother. This order of rejection is what is challenged before this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Section 17(2) of the Act can be pressed into service only when the victim girl attains the age of 18 years and she cannot be kept in the Child Welfare Home or under the custody of the State. Once the victim attains the age of 18 years, the mother is entitled to the said custody.

5. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor takes this Court through the entire material that lead to a raid in the lodge and registration of a crime in Crime No.395/2025. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet against several persons. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner - mother ought to have been booked for forcing her daughter for prostitution, which has not been done. It is an inadvertent omission. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would further contend that when an earlier crime had been registered against the petitioner – mother for the very offences under the Act and the application being filed by the petitioner mother, the child was released in favour of the mother. But, the mother again puts her daughter back into the same situation i.e., into the racket of prostitution, which has now become a crime in Crime No.395/2025. Be that as it may.

6. The issue now is, whether the victim – daughter of the petitioner who was rescued from a prostitution racket and at the relevant point in time was aged 17 years, should be handed over to the custody of the mother, on the score that she has now attained the age of 18 years.

7. To answer the issue, it is necessary to notice Section 17 and Section 17A of the Act. It reads as follows:

“17. Intermediate custody of persons removed under Section 15 or rescued under Section 16.— (1) When the special police officer removing a person under sub-section (4) of Section 15 or a police officer rescuing a person under sub-section (1) of Section 16, is for any reason unable to produce him before the appropriate magistrate as required by sub-section (5) of Section 15, or before the magistrate issuing the order under sub-section (2) of Section 16, he shall forthwith produce him before the nearest magistrate of any class, who shall pass such orders as he deems proper for his safe custody unti