Back
'No Action Against Consensual Sex Work': Quashes Immoral Trafficking Case
Bilaspur, – The has quashed an FIR and all related criminal proceedings against a woman booked under the , holding that the continuation of the case would amount to the very harassment the sought to prevent. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal applied the landmark Budhadev Karmaskar directions, which protect adult consenting sex workers from police action.
Case Background: A Raid and a
The petitioner, an adult woman, was arrested following a police raid at Hotel Hayat in Raipur. She was charged under – provisions relating to brothel keeping, living on earnings of prostitution, procuring, and prostitution in or near public places. Despite being released on bail, the police filed a charge-sheet against her, leading to Criminal Case No. 4121/2023 pending before the .
The petitioner contended that she was neither present at nor residing in the hotel at the time of the raid. She claimed she was called to the police station and falsely implicated. Crucially, she argued that the FIR and subsequent proceedings violated the ’s directions in Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal (Criminal Appeal No. 135/2010, decided on ), which mandate that voluntary sex workers be treated with dignity and not be arrested or harassed during brothel raids.
Arguments Presented: Petitioner vs. State
For the Petitioner:
, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the allegations did not disclose any independent act by his client that would constitute the ingredients of the offences charged. The only basis for her prosecution was her alleged status as a sex worker. He argued that the in
Budhadev Karmaskar
had clearly directed that “when it is clear that the sex worker is an adult and is participating with consent, the police must refrain from interfering or taking any criminal action.” He further relied on the recent
Prajwala v. Union of India
(2026) to reinforce that voluntary sex workers must not be victimised during raids.
For the State:
, Deputy Government Advocate, countered that the FIR was registered on specific information and the charge-sheet was supported by material collected during investigation. She argued that the disputed presence of the petitioner and the evidentiary value of the material could only be adjudicated during trial, and that the High Court should not intervene at this stage in exercise of its under .
Legal Analysis: Applying the 's Mandate
The High Court meticulously examined the Budhadev Karmaskar judgment, quoting its key paragraphs. The had directed: - Sex workers are entitled to . - Criminal law must apply equally on the basis of . - During a raid on a brothel, since is not illegal, the sex workers concerned should not be arrested, penalised, harassed, or victimised.
The High Court observed that the allegations against the petitioner, even as projected by the prosecution, were essentially that she was a sex worker found in connection with activities at Hotel Hayat. The material on record did not disclose any specific allegation demonstrating an independent act constituting the ingredients of Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7. The court noted that the petitioner had specifically disputed her presence at the hotel.
Significantly, the court had already stayed proceedings on , after finding a strong case in the petitioner’s favour. Since no material change had occurred, the court decided to make the interim order final.
Key Observations
“Sex workers are entitled to . Criminal law must apply equally in all cases, on the basis of 'age' and 'consent'. When it is clear that the sex worker is an adult and is participating with consent, the police must refrain from interfering or taking any criminal action.”
“Whenever there is a raid on any brothel, since is not illegal and only running the brothel is unlawful, the sex workers concerned should not be arrested or penalised or harassed or victimised.”
“Continuation of the criminal proceedings against an adult woman merely on account of her alleged involvement as a sex worker would amount to subjecting an adult woman to the very harassment and victimisation against which the Hon’ble has issued specific directions.”
Court's Decision
The petition was allowed. The High Court quashed FIR No. 493/2022 registered at , the consequential charge-sheet, and Criminal Case No. 4121/2023 pending before the JMFC, Raipur, insofar as it related to the petitioner (accused No. 3). The interim order dated , merged with this final order. The decision underscores the binding nature of the ’s directive and serves as a critical check against the criminalisation of .
