ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The applicant before this court has invoked provisions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking quashment of FIR being C.R. No. II- 3005 of 2010 lodged before the DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offenses punishable under Sections 3, 5, 7, and 9 of the Immoral TrafÏc Act, 1956, and Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The FIR came to be lodged by the Respondent No. 2 on 17.01.2010 interalia mainly stating that the Original Complainant was present at the police station with other police personnel and at that time they received secret information that at Hotel Dev Palace situated at Ashram Road the accused person as named in FIR in connivance with the Hotel Manager and owner of Hotel running Brothel by calling girl from outside and at that time also activity is going on and therefore, Original Complainant has informed ladies constable of Mahila Police Station and also ask to call punter (Fake Customer).

2.1 It is further stated in the Complaint that after calling fake customer everything was explained to him (Punter) and thereafter the raid was carried out with local panchas and fake customer went inside first and thereafter the Original Complainant with others have carried out raid at the Dev Palace Hotel and wherein one person namely Dasharathsinh Madansinh Sisodiya came to be caught from counter who is manager of hotel and three customer including punter came to be caught from the room and five more customers were caught who are waiting for their turn outside the room and upon inquiry from manager and girl. It is further alleged that Nitin @ Sonu Mehta in connivance with hotel owner Vimalbhai Modi have brought the girls from outside state and running brothel and accordingly the FIR came to be lodged.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Mahesh Poojara for Mr. Kishan Prajapati would submit that after registration of the FIR, investigation came to be carried out, and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be laid before the concerned court, which came to be numbered as Criminal Case No. 330 of 2010.

3.1 The Applicant came to be arrested as a customer in the present case, and as per the settled principles of this Hon’ble court, none of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, more particularly Sections 3, 5, 7, and 9 of the said Act, can be invoked against a customer, inasmuch as the investigation agency has shown the present applicant as a customer when the alleged raid was carried out, and under such circumstances, has argued that the present FIR be quashed and set aside.

3.2 Lastly, it was submitted that even if the offense under Section 188 of the IPC is concerned, no role is attributed against the present applicant, and if at all, considering the provisions of Section 195, no cognizance can be taken on an FIR pursuant to which the charge sheet came to be filed, since a private complaint is required to be lodged as per the settled principle, and therefore also, it was argued to allow the present application.

3.3 Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Rohan Shah would not dislodge the fact that the present applicant was arraigned as an accused in the charge sheet as a customer and was caught red-handed during the raid, and that as per the settled principle of law, a customer cannot be attributed with the offenses punishable under Sections 3, 5, 7, and 9 of the Immoral TrafÏc Act.

4. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

4.1 The impugned FIR as well as judgments tendered by the learned Advocate for the Applicant in the case of Vishal Bhikhabhai Chavda Versus State of Gujarat reported in 2025(0) AIJEL – HC 252088 and in the case of Sajjan Kalikant Zha Versus State of Gujarat and another reported in 2026(0) AIJEL-HC 253939, It is an undisputed fact that the present applicant was caught during the raid on the spot, and the present applicant is neither the manager of the brothel, but was caught as a customer during