IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 1486 of 2026 ==========================================================

DHARMIK KIRANBHAI LAKHANI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR MEET V JANI(13101) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. KUSH S PATEL(17333) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MANAN MAHETA, LD.ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS Date : 18/03/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of filing the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant- accused has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No. A- 11210065241003 of 2024 registered with the Utran Police Station, Surat, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956; under Sections 144(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; and under Sections 14(A), 14(C) of the Foreigners (Amendment) Act, 2004, as well as the charge sheet and the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.80 of 2025 pending before the learned JMFC, Muni. Court, Surat. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Mr.Manan Maheta waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. It is the case of the present applicant that he was merely a customer and was arrested pursuant to the raid carried out by the Police. The case of the prosecution is that upon receiving the secret information, the police had raided the Hotels and the applicant was caught red handed, for which the impugned FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and under Sections 144(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections

14(A), 14(C) of the Foreigners (Amendment) Act, 2004.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Meet Jani appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was merely a customer and he had not procured or attempted to procure any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Vishal Bhikhabhai Chavda Vs. State of Gujarat [2025 (o) AIJEL HC 252088, learned advocate has submitted that the case on hand is squarely covered. The relevant paragraph of the judgment read thus :

“12. Ld. counsel Mr. Anandjiwala has drawn attention of this Court on the observations made by this Court in para- 26 of the decision in the case of State of Gujarat v. Bai Radha, w/o Natvarlal Ramshankar & Another (9 GLR 261). It would be beneficial to quote the relevant para-26 which is as under :-

"26. Sec.5(1)(a) provides that any person who procures or attempts to procure a woman or girl, whether with or without her consent, for the purpose of prostitution, that person shall be punished as provided therein. In this respect also Mr.Nanavati's contention was that accused No.3 can be said to have procured a woman such as Bai Kanta for the purposes of prostitution to Kishan and that, therefore, he can be held liable for the offence under Section5(1)(a) of the Act. The word "procure" is not defined under the Act,but we were referred to its dictionary meaning which says "To bring about by care or pains; also (more vaguely) to bring about, cause, effect, produce; to obtain by care or effort; to acquire; to obtain (women) for the gratification of lust; to prevail upon, induce, persuade (a person) to do something." Giving the normal meaning to the use of the word "procure" in clause (a) of sub- section (1) of Section 5, what is required is only that he must have obtained a woman or a girl for the purpose of prostitution for a particular individual."

Mr. Anandjiwala has placed emphasis on words "obtain a woman or a girl for the purpose of prostitution for a particular individual" and it is argued that from these observations made, it is sufficiently clear that Section 5(i) (a) of