A person caught as a customer during a raid on a brothel cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Trafficking Act for offenses such as keeping a brothel, procuring persons for prostitution, or living on the earnings of prostitution.

ORAL ORDER

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms.Krina P.Calla waives service of notice of rule for and behalf of the respondent no.1 – State.

2. By way of preferring the present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant-accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying to quash and set-aside the First Information Report No.11210069240870 of 2024 registered with the Althan Police Station, District Surat, and the Charge-sheet No.08 of 2024 dated 13.01.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 3 , 4, 5, 7 of the Immoral Trafficking Act and under Sections 144(2), 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

4. Learned advocate Mr.P.P.Majmudar appearing for the applicant-accused has submitted that the applicant was a customer, and at the time of the raid carried out by the police at Fortune Hotel situated at Sarsana Road, Surat, he was caught in an inappropriate condition with one lady, therefore, he was arrested by the police. Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar has submitted that the applicant was only a customer and the main accused persons are the manager, agent and the owner of the hotel, who are doing illegal activities and involved in prostitution.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar appearing for the applicant-accused has submitted that since the applicant being a customer, the issue is squarely covered by the decisions rendered by this Court in the cases of Bhaliya Sureshbhai Laljibhai vs. State of Gujarat and another [Criminal Misc. Application No.13987 of 2024, decided on 17.06.2025] and Vinod @ Vijay Bhagubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat and another , reported in 2017 SCC Online Guj 446, wherein in an identical situation, this Court has quashed and set-aside the FIRs qua the applicants therein. Furthermore, in the case of Vishal Bhikhabhai Chavda vs. State of Gujarat and another [Criminal Misc. Application No.17728 of 2024, decided on 07.10.2025], this Court has quashed and set-aside the FIR qua the applicant therein. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, learned advocate Mr.Majmudar has prayed to quash and set-aside the impugned FIR as well as all other consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto.

6. Learned APP Ms.Krina P.Calla appearing for the respondent – State could not dispute the fact that the applicant has been arraigned accused in the FIR as a customer, and in similar set of facts, this Court has earlier quashed the complaints filed against other accused persons. Therefore, while opposing the present application, she has submitted to pass appropriate orders.

7. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the decision relied upon by the applicant. It is an undisputed fact that the applicant has been arraigned accused in the FIR as a customer, when the hotel was raided. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the applicant-accused was a customer at the time when the raid was carried out at the hotel, it appears that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court rendered in the cases of Bhaliya Sureshbhai Laljibhai (supra) and Vinod @ Vijay Bhagubhai Patel (supra) wherein in an identical situation, this Court has quashed and set-aside the FIRs qua the applicants therein. The relevant observations made by this Court in the case of Vinod @ Vijay Bhagubhai Patel (supra) read thus :-

“[14] To put it in other words, whether a customer at a brothel is covered under Section 370 of the Indian Pe