Back
Rules Brothel Customers Liable Under Despite Victim Affidavits
In a significant ruling that reinforces the character of the , has held that criminal proceedings against customers of a brothel cannot be quashed merely because the women allegedly subjected to sexual exploitation have recanted their statements. Justice Jobin Sebastian, while partially allowing a petition filed by accused persons in a case involving a spa centre allegedly operating as a brothel, ruled that accused persons found to be customers remain liable under .
Offences Under Are Not Private Disputes
The case arose from Crime No.1871/2024 registered at . The prosecution alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 recruited and harboured women at an Ayurvedic spa centre named 'Moksha' for sexual exploitation, while accused Nos.4 to 7 rendered assistance by recommending women. A raid on led to the recovery of accused Nos.4 to 7 allegedly engaged in sexual intercourse with four women.
The petitioners, including the alleged customers, sought of the final report under . They argued that the women involved had voluntarily filed affidavits and statements denying any exploitation, and that no material suggested trafficking or force. They further contended that the search procedure was flawed and that one accused was not present at the scene.
Court Refuses to Quash on Basis of Victim Statements
Rejecting the petitioners' submissions, the court observed that the offences under the
are not private disputes but concern activities prohibited in
.
"The mere fact that the women who were allegedly subjected to sexual exploitation do not presently have any grievance against the accused cannot, by itself, constitute sufficient justification for
the proceedings,"
the court held.
The court also noted that the prosecution's case does not rest solely on the testimony of the alleged victims. Independent witnesses and official witnesses, including the investigating officer, are available to support the prosecution. The court emphasised that even if the women turn hostile, the case can still be proven through other evidence.
Customers Cannot Escape Liability
Relying on the Division Bench decision in Noushad v. State of Kerala (2026 (5) KHC 537), the court clarified that customers who voluntarily avail services in a brothel become active participants in the commercial transaction and are liable under . Justice Sebastian observed that excluding customers from penal provisions would undermine the purpose of the Act.
The court found no material to sustain charges under or against accused Nos.4 to 7, as they were only customers with no role in managing the establishment. However, they must face trial under .
What the Court Said
In a key observation, the court stated:
"The offences alleged in the present case are also not in the nature of private disputes. The allegations relate to activities sought to be regulated and prohibited under a
enacted in the
."
On the issue of procedural irregularities, the court noted that non-compliance with search procedures alone is not a ground to invoke
.
"Every irregularity in investigation or search does not automatically render the prosecution
,"
it added.
Decision: Partial
The court allowed the petition in part. Accused Nos.1 and 3 (the alleged operators) will continue to face trial for all offences charged. The proceedings against accused Nos.4 to 7 under and are quashed. However, accused Nos.4 to 7 shall be prosecuted under .
The ruling underscores the court's reluctance to terminate prosecutions under special enactments based solely on the of alleged victims, particularly where independent evidence exists. It also clarifies the legal position on the liability of customers in brothel-related cases, setting a precedent for future proceedings under the .
