Important Point:
Powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are very wide. It is true that the same should be used sparingly and in rare case, where it is apparent from record that the prosecution has no case. The discretion for quashing the complaint or charge-sheet must be carefully used and the High Court must see that its decision in exercise of its power is based on sound principles.

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the First Information Report being I-CR No. 4 of 2017 dated 3rd January 2017, registered with the Kadodara GIDC Police Station, Surat (Rural), for the offence punishable under Section 370 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

2. The case of the prosecution may be summarised as under:

The Police Officer of the Kadodara GIDC Police Station received information on 3rd January 2017 about a brothel being run by few persons in Tatithaiya-I Park. A team of police officers along with the panch witnesses and a punter carried out a raid at the premises referred to above. In the course of the raid, one man and woman were found sitting in Room No. 301. In Room No. 310, the punter and a lady were found sitting. In Room No. 311, four persons were found sitting. On inquiry, one person by name Vishal Ramprasad Yadav identified himself as the in-charge of the building. The other person identified himself as Muzbir @ Rinku Rehman Shaikh. In addition to the persons referred to above who were running the brother, the applicant herein along with others was also found present. The applicant was one of the customers. In such circumstances, the FIR referred to above came to be registered against in all six persons including the applicant herein.

3. Mr. Maulik Nanavati, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, vehemently submitted that his client being a customer cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. According to Mr. Nanavati, his client cannot be prosecuted even for the offence punishable under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. It is submitted that Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code concerns recruiting, transporting, harbouring, transferring or receiving a person or persons for the purpose of exploitation.

5. According to Mr. Nanavati, a customer cannot be said to have recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received the victim within the ambit of Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Nanavati submits that assuming for the moment that Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code is applicable to a customer, the same will have no application so far as the applicant is concerned because at best the applicant could be said to have prepared for the commission of the offence. The applicant was found sitting in the flat as a customer and was waiting for his turn to come. Before the applicant could come in actual contact with any girl, the raid was carried out and everyone was arrested.

6. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Nanavati prays that there being merit in this application, the same be allowed and the FIR be quashed so far as the applicant herein is concerned.

7. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Mitesh Amin, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. According to Mr. Amin, more than a prima facie case could be said to have been made out against the applicant as he was caught red-handed by the police officers at the time of the raid. Whether the case is one of an attempt to commit an offence or preparation, is a subject matter of investigation and the same cannot be looked into by this Court at this stage.

8. Mr. Amin further submitted that Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code covers a 'customer'. According to Mr. Amin, in the wake of gang-rape of Nirbhaya in Delhi which created an unprecedented public furore, the Government considered it fit to drastically amend several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and in that direction appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship of late Justice J.S. Verma, the former Chief Justice of India. The Committee, after interacting cross sections of stake holders, subm