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.

ORDER :

The instant petition under Section 4 82 of CrPC has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR in relation to Crime No.402/2022 registered at Police Station Palasia, District- Indore for offence punishable under Sections 3 , 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (in short “the Act, 1956” and Section 3 4 of M.P. Excise Act as well as quashment of charge-sheet and other consequential proceedings pending before the Court of JMFC, Indore arising out of said crime.

(2) In brief, the facts of the case are that on 14.09.2022, Police Station- Palasia received a secret information that prostitution is being carried out at HELLO SPA UNISEX SALOON, upon which a raid was conducted by police where the petitioner was found along with a lady, namely, “X” in compromising position in Room No.6. The petitioner is alleged to be a customer of prostitution namely “X” who was engaged in sex work in lieu of money. On such allegation, petitioner was arrested and FIR was lodged. Relevant materaials were seized from spot. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation and other formalities, charge sheet was filed on 06.11.2022 for offence punishable under Sections 3 , 4, 5 and 6 of the Act, 1956 and Section 3 4 of M.P. Excise Act against petitioner and other co-accused.

(3) It is contended on behalf of petitioner that even if the entire allegation in the FIR as well as charge sheet are taken on its face value, then no offence is made out against the petitioner under the Act, 1956 as the allegation against the petitioner is of him being a customer engaging in sex with a sex worker in lieu of money. It is further contended that in scheme of the 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 is not punishable. There is no such allegation against petitioner. There is nothing to show that 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 worker. No offence is made out against the petitioner. In support of contentions, learned Cousnel for petitioner has relied on the judgment of Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments passed by the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Vinod @ Vijay Bhagubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat [2017 SCC Online Guj 446 :(2017) 58 (4) GLR 2804], order passed by the High Court of Telangana & Andhra Pradesh in the case of Genka Sajan Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in Cr. Petition No.4161 of 2014, order passed in the case of Z.Lourdiah Naidu & anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in Cr. P. No.408 of 2011, order passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in the case of Cap. K. I. Sunil Simon alias Sunil Simon vs. State of Haryana, dated 27-02-2024 in CRM-M-30724-2021 (2024 PHHC 027088), Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Dinesh Tiwari alias Dhirendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of UP in Application under Section 4 82 No.9161 of 2023 dated 22-02-2024 (2024 AHC-LKO-15780) and Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru decision in the case of Babu S. vs. State, Criminal Contempt Petiiton No.2119 of 2022 dated 4^th Day of April, 2022.

(4) Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the record.

(5) On the other hand,