A customer in a brothel cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act or IPC sections related to trafficking and brothel management.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

“Wherefore, the Petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 23.02.2023, passed by the Learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anekal, and quash the proceedings in S.C.No.5018/2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 , 4 , 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and under Section 370 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code , in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the impugned proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 3 , 4 , 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and Section 370 read with Section 34 of IPC , the petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.1 in the charge sheet, which is assailed in the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Barath S.P. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., reported in Crl.P.No.1757/2022 dated 24.03.2022 in order to point out that even according to the FIR, complaint, charge sheet and statement of witnesses and documents, petitioners are merely customers and consequently, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the aforesaid offences as held in Barath S.P. case supra wherein this Court has held as under:

“The petitioner calls in question proceedings in C.C.No.109 of 2018 pending before the JMFC (II Court), Mysuru arising out of Crime No.93 of 2015 registered for offences punishable under Section 370 (3) of the Indian Penal Code (‘ IPC ’ for short) and Sections 3 to 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention Act), 1956 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Heard Sri B.Santhosh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashoda, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The Police on 24-09-2015 conduct a search on premises No.630, ‘C’ Block, Mahadevapura coming under the jurisdiction of Vidyaranyapuram Police, Mysore where brothel business was being run. During the search, the petitioner was also apprehended and a criminal case against the petitioner and other accused is registered in Crime No.93 of 2015 for offences punishable under Section 370 (3) of the IPC and Sections 3 to 6 of the Act. Police, after investigation, have filed a charge sheet in the matter and the case is now numbered as C.C.No.109 of 2018 for the aforesaid offences on the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner and others on 30-01-2018. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that accused 1, 2 and 3 were alleged to be running a brothel and making profits. The petitioner is only a customer who had visited the brothel at the time when the search was conducted. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would be contrary to law and consequently abuse of the process of law.

5. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently refute the submission that the petitioner has visited the brothel house as a customer and contends that he is involved in the business of skin trade and, therefore, he should not be let off from facing trial.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts ar