Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
HIRDESH
Rishi Pal – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
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 punish
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.
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.
A customer in a brothel cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, and violations of procedural safeguards do not automatically invalidate proceedings unless prejudice is demons....
Violation of Section 15(2) of the Act is irregular but not a ground for quashing the proceeding. A customer found in a brothel cannot be held liable under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations in the FIR must disclose an offence, and the court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside and ....
The absence of evidence proving that victims were trafficked or exploited negates the applicability of Section 370(A)(2) IPC against customers.
Customers cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act without evidence of trafficking, but may be liable under Section 370(A)(2) IPC if they had reason to believe victims were tra....
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
