Sex workers are victims, not perpetrators, absent evidence of soliciting or pimping under ITP Act.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar For R1 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER The petitioners/A3 and A4 in C.C.No.3718 of 2025, who are facing trial for the offence under Section 4(2)(c) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention)

Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITP Act’) filed this quash petition.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 30.11.2024 at about 4.00 p.m.

the defacto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he is a resident of Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District and he is known to A1 an A2. The defacto complainant is doing finance business and A1 who is from Tirunelveli and A2 from Nagercoil borrowed loan from the defacto complainant. A1 and A2 running a Spa Centre in Rolex Arcade, Coimbatore. On 30.11.2024 at about 2.30 p.m., the defacto complainant went to the Spa Centre of A1 and A2 seeking for return of money, at that time, A1/Alvin Surya took him inside the Spa Centre where two girls were there who are A3 and A4. A1 informed the defacto complainant that he is running a brothel house and he promised him that he would repay the money the next day and in the meanwhile, the defacto complainant can have pleasurable time with A3 and A4. Further A1 informed that he will call A2/Joseph Jepinsam who was waiting in the main road and scouting for customers. Since the defacto complainant is not interested, he lodged a complaint to the respondent police and case registered in Crime No.757 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)(c) and 5(1)(d) of ITP Act. On completion of investigation, charge sheet filed listing LW1 to LW11 and documents.

3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in this case charge against the petitioners is under Section 4(2)(c) of ITP Act which is for persons who are soliciting for prostitution. From the entire reading of the statement of witnesses and materials collected, it is clear that the petitioners solicited no customer and it is further seen that the petitioners are only victims and not participators in the crime. The statement given by the defacto complainant is highly imaginary, he has got some financial dispute with A1 and A2 for which he gave a false complaint. Admittedly in this case no customer lodged a complaint, the Special Police Officer not conducted any investigation and whether the first respondent is an authorized person to register a case under ITP Act, no documents produced. In this case, the witnesses examined are to the effect that A1 and A2 are running Spa Centre without licence and permission but no incriminating materials seized and none lodged a complaint as though it was running as brothel house and the petitioners acted as prostitutes. Utmost the petitioners are only victims and they cannot be pimps in this case.

4.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Budhadev Karmaskar vs. the State of West Bengal and others reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 525 for the point that sex workers are entitled to equal protection of law. Criminal law must apply equally in all cases on the basis of age and consent. The Panel constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court recommended in respect of the third term of reference in the following terms:

“(iii) Whenever there is a raid on any brothel, since voluntary sex work is not illegal and only running the brothel is unlawful, the sex workers concerned should not be arrested or penalised or harassed or victimised.”

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petitioner’s contention and submitted that on the complaint of one Lakshmanan, case came to be registered in Cri