##PAGE1##

In the High Court at Calcutta

Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri

Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

CRR 407 of 2025

Subhojit Saha

Vs.

The State of West Bengal

For the petitioner : Ms. Suman Sehanabis

: Mr. Salok Sah

: Ms. Anwesha Chakraborty

For the State : Mr. Aniruddha Biswas

Heard On : 22.12.2025

Judgment On : 22.12.2025

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. The petitioner who has been charged with offences under Sections 3,

4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 has come up

before this Court in the instant case seeking quashing of the criminal

proceedings against him being Sessions Case No. 89 (06) of 2022

corresponding to GR Case No. 280 of 2020, now pending in the Court

of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Court at Siliguri,

Darjeeling.

2. According to Ms. Suman Sehanabis, learned advocate for the

petitioner, the offences as alleged against the petitioner would not be

applicable in his case, he being allegedly the customer in the

Page 2 of 4

prostitution carried on at the instance of the other co-accused

persons.

3. Ms. Sehanabis, learned advocate in this regard has referred to the

statement of the detainee alleged to have been a prostitute with whom

the petitioner was allegedly found in a compromised position. She

submits that, so far as the offence against the petitioner as above are

concerned, there is no material available from the statement,

mentioned as above. She also submits that, previously the petitioner

has been granted anticipatory bail for the reason that, there are no

material in CD that the petitioner has controlled the place for being

used for commercial sexual activities or has been living on the earning

of prostitution.

4. To buttress her argument, Ms. Sehanabis, learned advocate referred to

the following judgments:-

i. Budhadev Karmaskar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

reported in MANU/SCOR/55689/2022

ii. Dinesh Tiwari alias Dhirendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of

U.P. reported in AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 839.

iii. Suresh Babu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIRONLINE

2022 CAL 1402.

iv. Barath S.P. Vs. State of Karnata reported in AIRONLINE

2022 KAR 117.

v. Rishi Pal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in

AIRONLINE 2024 MP 1772

Page 3 of 4

5. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Budhuadev

Karmaskar (Supra) has been pleased to held that, whenever there is

a raid on any brothel, the sex workers concerned should not be

arrested or penalized or harassed or victimized, since voluntary sex

work is not illegal and running the brothel unlawful. Taking clue

thereof, the petitioner has put forth argument that, he is no way

connected with the running of brothel as alleged. In the other

judgments as referred to by the petitioner, the respective Courts have

considered the scope of Section 7 of the said Act of 1956 and

categorically held that an alleged customer cannot be understood to

have procured or induced or taken any person for the sake of

prostitution or detaining any person in the premises for the said

purpose or to have lived on the earning of the prostitution allowing the

premises to be used as a brothel. Hence, the Courts have held that, an

alleged customer cannot be implicated for allegations under the said

Act of 1956.

6. Mr. Aniruddha Biswas, learned advocate, who has represented the

State, has raised strong objection as to the contentions and prayer of

the petitioner as above. He has referred to the documents in CD as

well as the statutory provisions to submit that, the petitioner duly

comes within the purview of the same and there is no justifiable

reason that the Court intervenes into the trial.

7. According to Mr. Biswas, “a customer” shall also be treated as a

„person with whom the prostitution is carried on‟ as enumerated in

Section 7 of the Act of 1956.

8. Heard both the learned advocates. Perused the judgments as referred

to by the respective parties and the statutory provisions. So far the

judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Suresh Babu

Page 4 of