A customer in a brothel is not liable for prosecution under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

O R D E R Dated this the 17^th day of March, 2026 The 1^st accused in Crime No.852/2013 of Kothamangalam Police Station, which is now pending as CC. 562/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothamangalam, filed this Crl.M.C. under Section 528 of the BNSS, praying for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the co-accused are under Sections

2(f), 3,4, and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 .

2. The prosecution case is that on 20.6.2013, in the morning, the 1^st accused took the 3^rd accused in the car of the 2^nd accused to a lodge belonging to the 4^th accused, in which the 1^st accused, after paying consideration to the 3^rd accused, had sexual intercourse with her. It is also alleged that the 2^nd accused made all arrangements for the accused persons 1 and 3 to have sexual intercourse with each other.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is only a customer and as such the offences alleged under sections 2(f), 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, are not attracted. Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceeding against the petitioner. He has also relied upon Annexures A3 and A4 judgments of this Court, by which the proceedings against the accused persons 2 and 4 are quashed by this Court. 4. The petition was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. On a perusal of the charge levelled against the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner herein was only a customer and he has taken the 3^rd accused in the car of the 2^nd accused to the lodge run by the 4^th accused, in which he had sexual intercourse with the 3^rd accused for consideration. From annexure A3 judgment of this Court in Crl.M.C. No.8054/2018 dated 28.11.2018, it is seen that this Court has already quashed the proceedings against the 2^nd accused. From Annexure A4 judgment in Crl.M.C. No.2620/2015 dated 23.7.2024, it is further seen that this Court has quashed the proceedings against the 4^th accused. The role of the petitioner herein is only as a customer in the brothel. Relying upon the decision of this Court inVishnu Vs. State of Kerala ( Crl.M.C.9565/2025) dated 17.2.2026, he would argue that customer in a brothel is not liable to be punished under Sections 2 (f),3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

6. Since the petitioner herein was only a customer in the brothel, in the light of the decision in Vishnu (supra) as well as in the light of Annexures A3 and A4 judgments, this Crl.M.C. is liable to be allowed.

7. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in CC. No.562/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothamangalam, arising from in Crime No.852/2013 of Kothamangalam Police Station, is quashed.

Sd/-

C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE

sou.

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 3930 OF 2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO,.

852/2013 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 852/2013 DATED

20.06.2013 WITH MAHASSAR , SEIZURE MAHASSAR, Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2018 AGAINST THE SECOND ACCUSED IN CRL. M.C NO.

8054 OF 2018 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.07.2024 AGAINST THE 4TH ACCUSED IN CRL.M.C NO. 2620 OF

2015