ORDER

Singh, J:- 1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.08/2022, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore, District Indore against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and subsequent criminal proceedings of RCT No.1226/2022, pending before the Court of JMFC, Indore , Distt Indore.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 6.1.2022 at about 21:22 hours, after receiving a secret information that prostitution is being carried out in Vijaynagar area at Atoms Salon and Skin Clinic, SHO Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore, Jyoti Sharma alongwith other police officials, Panch-witnesses and Punter carried out a raid at the premises referred to above. During the course of raid, petitioner and a lady; co-accused Valalakh were found in room no.1 of the spa center in compromising position. In other rooms, other co-accused persons were also found in compromising position, while co-accused personas Chandni and Sanjay who were found sitting on the counter. On inquiry, it was found that co-accused persons; Chandni and Sanjay were the incharge of the premises and carrying out the prostitution. Mobile phones and other articles were seized from the possession of the petitioner and other co-accused persons and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,1956.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the scheme of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, sexual exploitation or abuse of a person for commercial purpose and to earn the bread thereby keeping or allowing a premise as brothel and also when a person is carrying on prostitution in a public place or when a person is found soliciting or seducing another person are not punishable. There is no such allegation against the petitioner. There is nothing to show that the petitioner exercised control, direction or influence over the lady's movement in the way, which can be shown to be aiding or abetting her sex work. Mere visiting the house of sex worker as customer cannot be presumed to be living on earning of sex workers. No offence is made out against the petitioner, and therefore, the FIR lodged against the petitioner as well as subsequent criminal proceedings pending against him are liable to be quashed.

To bolster his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgements passed by the High Court of Gujrat in the case of Vinod @ Vijay Bhagubhai Patel v. State of Gujrat [2017 SCC Online Guj 446 : (2017) 58 (4) GLR 2804] and order passed by the High Court of Telangana & Andhra Pradesh in the case of Genka Sajan Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh in Cr. Petition No. 4161 of 2014 and in the case of Z. Lourdiah Naidu & anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh in Cr. P. No.408 of 2011.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and submits that petitioner was found in brothel in compromising position with a lady. His act very well comes under the purview of the abatement, therefore, this petition is devoid of merit, and the same may be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the record.

6. In the case of Vinod @ Vijay Bhagubhai Patel v. State of Gujrat (supra), law relating to the Immoral Traffic Act has been discussed exhaustively and the relevant extract is as follows :-

“15. Answering the first question is not difficult because the issue is no longer res integra. This Court, in the case of Umedsinh P.Champavat v. State of Gujarat, (2006)2 GLH 736, after placing reliance on an earlier decision of this very Court in the case of The State of Gujarat v. Bai Radha w/o Natwarlal Ramshankar and another, 9 GLR 278, held as under :

“9. Section 3 of the said Act provides punishment for keepi