Customer Who Visits Brothel Only To Satisfy His Lust Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Immoral Traffic Act: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a 'customer' who visited a brothel charged under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (the Act).
The court observed that a person visiting a brothel solely to satisfy his lust, and not for commercial purposes, cannot be prosecuted under the Act.
The applicant was found to be in an intimate position with a lady who was allegedly involved in prostitution in a locked room during a search operation.
The applicant had argued that the mandatory provision of Section 15(2) of the Act was not followed. The applicant further argued that he was simply a customer who was at a house which was being used for prostitution and that alone should not attract a penalty under the Act.
The Court pointed out that it was an admitted fact in both the F.I.R. and the search memo that no person had accompanied the Police during the search of the house. Therefore, the provision of Section 15(2) regarding the presence of two witnesses of locality, including a woman, was violated.
The Court explained that because of the said violation, the entire search, recovery and arrest became doubtful. The Court had to examine whether the violation of Section 15(2) of the Act was itself a ground for quashing the proceeding.
A Single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed, “lacuna in search is a question that should be decided during trial and proceeding cannot be quashed only on the ground that there is irregularity or non-compliance of Section 15(2) of the Act while conducting the search of a house, being used for prostitution because in practical, none of the persons of locality comes forward to accompany the police in case of search of a brothel. If such ground is considered for quashing the proceedings under the Act, then most of the proceedings will be quashed without going to trial.”
Advocate Anshumali Srivastava represented the applicant, while GA Arvind Kumar Tripathi appeared for the opposite party.
The Court then delved into the definition of prostitution and explained that “if a person is sexually exploited or abused for commercial purposes (for earning money), only then will there be prostitution. If a person comes to a brothel and pays money for the satisfaction of his lust, then, at the most, it can be said that he procures a woman to satisfy his lust and not for commercial purposes.”
The Court held that if a person visits a brothel, then, at the most, that person may be said to be a procurer of a prostitute to satisfy his lust but not for the purpose of prostitution because acquiring a person for prostitution means sexual exploitation or abuse for commercial purposes and not for any other purpose which does not have any commercial purpose or earning money.
Therefore the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicant and Court that a customer, who is not earning money from prostitution or helping or abetting the prostitution for money, will not be liable to be punished under Section 4 of the Act.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application.
Cause Title: Dinesh Tiwari @ Dhirendra Kumar Tiwari v. State Of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:15780)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Anshumali Srivastava and Mayank Srivastava
Opposite Party: GA Arvind Kumar Tripathi
