Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VIMAL K.VYAS
Husanali Kurbanali Vakil – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
ORDER :
VIMAL K.VYAS, J.
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr.Manan Maheta waives service of notice of rule for and behalf of the respondent no.1 – State.
2. By way of preferring the present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant-accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the First Information Report being C.R. No.I- 11201002240033 of 2024 registered with the C.I.D. Crime Police Station, Ahmedabad, dated 31.07.2024 and the Charge-sheet No.14 of 2025 dated 08.04.2025, which has been culminated into Criminal Case No.65969 of 2025, and subsequently committed to the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad as Sessions Case No.1262 of 2025 pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 , 4, 5, 7 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that based on the secret input received by the CID crime that an international sex trafficking and prostitution racket is being operated from New Comfort Inn Hotel, where foreign nationals from Uganda are engaged in prostitution, a trap was laid and the premises of t
A customer at a brothel cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act without evidence of involvement in procuring prostitution.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations in the FIR must disclose an offence, and the court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside and ....
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.
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.
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
