IMPORTANT POINT
A customer who pays for procuring a girl for prostitution can be charged under sections 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

ORDER :

G. S. Ahluwalia, J.

On 13-3-2024 the following order was passed :—

“The moot question for consideration is as to whether the customer, who had paid money for procuring a girl can be punished under sections 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 or not ?

Counsel for petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Naman Laddha vs. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 19-12-2022 in MCRC No. 34970/2022 (Indore Bench). However, it appears that there was no allegation that customer had procured a girl by making payment of some money, whereas in the present case there are allegations that applicant had paid money for procuring the girl.

Faced with such a situation, counsel for applicant prays for time to make further preparations.

Time granted.

List in the next week”.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that arguing counsel is out of station and prayed for time.

3. Prayer for adjournment was refused for the simple reason that the case was already argued extensively on 13-3-2024 and this Court had adjourned the case only at the request of counsel for the applicant to point out as to whether the ingredients of procuring a person for the purpose of prostitution would be an offence under section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1956 Act’) or not ? This query was raised by this Court on the ground that a material was collected by the prosecution that the applicant had paid money for procuring a girl for prostitution.

4. The facts of the case, in short, are that an information was received on 6-1-2021 that prostitution is going on and accordingly, a search was carried out in the house of co-accused Deependra Vishwakarma @ Vicky. When the raiding party went inside the house, then they found that Deepesh Vishkarma was sitting in a hall on a sofa and four more persons were sitting along with him, whose names were Prakhar Dubey @ Shubham Pandit, Neelesh Patel, Akshay Barman and Akshay Patel. The punter, who was sent in advance by the police, namely Deepak Tiwari, was also found there. In one room, one boy and girl were found in an objectionable condition who disclosed their names as X and Abhinav Lodhi and two packets of unused condoms and one used condom were recovered. When the other room was opened, again one girl and one boy were found in objectionable condition, who discloses their names as Y and Rishabh Khare (the applicant). Again two packets of condoms were recovered and used condom was also found under the bed. They informed that they have taken a room on rent from Deepesh Vishwakarma and by making payment, the girl has been provided by Prakhar Dubey and Nilesh Patel. Search of the accused persons was carried out and an amount of Rs. 6,000/- was recovered from Deepesh Vishkarma including five currency notes, which were given by punter (a witness, which was sent by the police in advance to verify the information). Similarly, money was recovered from other co-accused persons. Rs. 600/- and a mobile phone was also recovered from the possession of the applicant. Accordingly, the police after registering the FIR has filed the charge-sheet for offence under section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the 1956 Act. By the impugned order dated 15-3-2021, JMFC, Jabalpur framed the charge for the offence under section 5 and 6 of the 1956 Act.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant preferred revision which too has been dismissed by order dated 28-7-2021 passed by 18th A.S.J. Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 125/2021.

6. Challenging the order framing charge, it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 19-12-2022 passed in the case of Naman Laddha vs. State of M. P. in M.Cr.C.No. 34970/2022 (Indore Bench) has held that a customer cannot be prosecuted. Similarly, reliance was placed on the judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of Bikas Kumar Jain and another vs. State of Odisha p