Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Anshumali Srivastava, Mayank Srivastava.

Key Points: - The judgment states that violation of Section 15(2) is irregular but not a ground for quashing the proceeding; evidence scrutiny is required. (!) (!) - It holds that a customer found in a brothel cannot be held liable under Sections 3/4/5/7/8/9 of the Act. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The proceeding was quashed against the applicant because the person was a customer and not liable under the cited sections. (!) - Section 15(2) requires two witnesses (one may be a woman) for searches without a warrant; absence of witnesses makes search doubtful but not automatically void. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The analysis differentiates between acts constituting keeping/managing a brothel (Section 3) and mere customer presence (not liable) under the Act. (!) (!) - The court references thatSection 7 or 8 do not apply to a solitary customer absent other statutory circumstances. (!) (!) - The decision emphasizes trial-level consideration of irregularities in Section 15(2) without barring the case from trial. (!) (!) - The final outcome: application under Cr.P.C. Section 482 quashed the proceeding in Case No. 426 of 2007. (!) (!)

How to determine whether a violation of Section 15(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act invalidates the entire proceeding?

What is the liability of a customer found in a brothel under Sections 3/4/5/7/8/9 of the Act?

What is the court's ruling on quashing the proceeding when the search was conducted in violation of Section 15(2) but the customer was not liable under the Act?