Victim Of Prostitution Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Immoral Traffic Prevention Act: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court observed that a victim of prostitution cannot be punished for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956.
The Court remarked thus in a criminal petition preferred by the accused questioning the proceedings pending before the Trial Court under Section 5 of the 1956 Act.
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “Nowhere Section 5 of the Act would indicate that a woman who is a victim of prostitution should be punished for offences punishable under Section 5 of the Act. It clearly indicates that any person who procures or attempts to procure a woman or a girl for the purpose of prostitution would become liable for such prosecution.”
Advocate Kumara appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Additional State Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesh appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
In 2013, the Police Sub-Inspector attached to the crime wing of Kundapura Police Station in the course of investigation in a crime, received an information that some girls are being illegally transported from Udupi to Goa in a tempo traveller for the purpose of putting them in the business of prostitution. The vehicle was intercepted in National High Way 66 and it is after such interception, the facts emerge that the accused no. 1 along with accused no. 9 were taking the petitioner/accused no. 8 and others for engaging them in the business of prostitution by paying them Rs. 10,000/- each.
On the basis of the aforesaid incident, a crime was registered and the Police after investigation, filed a charge sheet against all the accused including the petitioner, who was arrayed as accused no. 8. The concerned Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 5 of the 1956 Act against the petitioner along with others and registered a case. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was the victim of prostitution at the hands of other accused and, therefore, she should not be permitted to be prosecuted.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “The petitioner was being transported for the purpose of engaging her in the business of prostitution is a matter of record. The allegation against the petitioner is one punishable under Section 5 of the Act.”
The Court referred to the case of Kajal Mukesh Singh v. The State of Maharashtra (2020 SCC Online Bom. 954) in which it was held by the Bombay High Court that it would become an abuse of the process of law, on the face of it, if the victim is permitted to be prosecuted for the offence under the Act, when the Act nowhere punishes the victim of prostitution.
“As said, the provisions, the purpose or the object of the Act is not to abolish prostitution or the prostitute. There is no provision under the law, which penalizes a victim who indulges in prostitution. What is punishable is sexual exploitation for commercial purposes and to earn or make a living upon it against such person/s”, it emphasised.
The Court said that if further trial is permitted to continue, the same would become an abuse of the process of law and result in patent injustice.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
Cause Title- Swathi v. The State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:20458)
