Back
HARKESH MANUJA
Captain K. I. Sunil Simon @ Sunil Simon – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, there is no specific mention of connected case law from the Kerala High Court. The judgments and legal principles discussed primarily reference decisions from other high courts, including Gujarat, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Allahabad, with no explicit reference to Kerala High Court jurisprudence. Therefore, it appears that no connected case law from the Kerala High Court is cited or discussed in this document.
Judgment
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.
By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for quashing of FIR No.510, dated 04.07.2018, registered under Section 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946, Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, “1956 Act), Section 120-B IPC and Section 3 of Passport Act, 1967, at Police Station DLF, Sector 29, Gurugram, District Gurugram, wherein the petitioner has been implicated being a customer found in objectionable position in the massage centre/spa run in the name of “Spa Time”, Shop No.28, Sector 29, Gurugram.
2. Aggrieved against the implication of the petitioner in the aforementioned FIR, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never indulged himself in any such act violating the provisions of 1956 Act. He further submits that even if the allegations levelled in the FIR are taken at its face value, no offence is made out against the petitioner as he has not been found abusing or exploiting any of the girls employed/working in the Spa. He also points out submits that the petitioner was merely being harassed on account of delayed trial against him as the charges in the presen
A customer at a spa or brothel, without involvement in managing or exploiting the premises for commercial purposes, cannot be held liable under the relevant sections of the Immoral Traffic (Preventio....
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.
Customers cannot be prosecuted under trafficking laws without evidence of knowledge regarding the exploitation of individuals involved.
Sexual exploitation – In absence of any evidence likely to come on record, securing conviction against accused is impossible and case can be quashed.
Prostitution – Criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to continue where allegations in written complaint do not make out any ingredients required to constitute offences.
A customer at a brothel cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act without evidence of involvement in procuring prostitution.
A customer found in a brothel cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act unless involved in managing or facilitating prostitution.
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
