Customers of brothels cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 as per the provisions cited.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 5 28 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS ’) by the petitioner/accused No.2, to quash the proceedings against him in P.R.C.No.38 of 2024 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal at Kushaiguda, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 3 70 (A)(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC ’) and Sections 3 , 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.03.2024 at about 12:45 hours, on receiving credible information about running of brothel house at Plot No.08, laxminagar colony, Rampally, Keesara Mandal, Medchal District, the Police raided the said premises and noticed that with an intention to earn money in ease manner, accused No.1 procured the victims for participating in illicit sexual intercourse with the customers by offering attractive amounts. It is stated that on 16.03.2024 accused No.2 went to the said premises for participating in illicit sexual intercourse. As such, accused Nos.1 and 2 along with the victims have been taken into custody and seized cash and mobile phones. Hence, a case was registered vide Crime No.174 of 2024 before the Keesara Police and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed vide P.R.C.No.38 of 2024 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal at Kushaiguda.

3. Heard Sri R.Thirupathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner/accused No.2 is a customer, the offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act are not applicable. He further submitted that though FIR was registered against the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 3 70 (A)(2) of the IPC and Sections 3 , 4 and 5 of the Act, the petitioner/accused No.2 being customer was charge sheeted only for the offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act and prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the presence of the petitioner was clearly found by the Police at the scene of offence and was taken into custody. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of charge sheet would disclose that accused No.2 alleged for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act. Hence, it is apt to refer to Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, which reads as follows:

““3. Punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel.

(1)Any person who keeps or manages, or acts or assists in the keeping or management of, a brothel shall be punishable on first conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.(2)Any person who-(a)being the tenant, lessee, occupier or person in charge of any premises, uses, or knowingly allows any other person to sue, such premises or any part thereof as a brothel, or(b)being the owner, lessor or landlord of any premises or the agent of such owner, lessor or landlord, lets the same or any part thereof with the knowledge that the same or any part