Back
SHAMPA DUTT PAUL
Manoj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Shampa Dutt Paul, J.—The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceeding being ACGR case no.5759 of 2020 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas arising out of Purba Jadavpur PS case no.95 of 2020 dated 18.12.2020 under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was arrested from a Spa which allegedly was used as a brothel where the petitioner unknowingly had gone for a massage as he had a backache. It is the allegation that the petitioner was a customer in the said Spa.
3. The women/girls found at the place of occurrence are all major as seen from the case diary and none have stated in their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. about being forced into working at the ‘Spa’.
4. The petitioner prima facie appears to be a customer at the ‘Spa’ as seen from the case diary.
5. The Immoral Traffics (Prevention) Act, 1956 (here in after referred to the Act of 1956 defines:-
2(a) “brothel” includes any house, room [conveyance], or place or a
Prostitution – Criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to continue where allegations in written complaint do not make out any ingredients required to constitute offences.
The court emphasized that the power to quash a complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly and as an exception, following the guidelines and parameters laid down by previous judgments.
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.
Violation of Section 15(2) of the Act is irregular but not a ground for quashing the proceeding. A customer found in a brothel cannot be held liable under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
A customer at a brothel cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act without evidence of involvement in procuring prostitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with mandatory provisions under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, the distinction between mandatory and directory p....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
