No Offence Of 'Immoral Trafficking' Committed By Spa Customer Caught With Employee During Raid: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside the FIR lodged against a man under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and other offences, after he was allegedly found in an objectionable position in a spa during a Police raid, observing that he was only the customer at the Spa and no offence was made out under relevant provisions.Justice Harkesh Manuja observed that, "Admittedly, there are...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside the FIR lodged against a man under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and other offences, after he was allegedly found in an objectionable position in a spa during a Police raid, observing that he was only the customer at the Spa and no offence was made out under relevant provisions.
Justice Harkesh Manuja observed that, "Admittedly, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner of managing the Spa or allowing the premises in question to be used as such or even having exploited or abused any of the girls working in the Spa for any commercial purpose or for earning money or even procured, induced or taken her for prostitution, thus, he being at best the customer at the Spa, found at the time of conducting of raid, no offence under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the 1956 Act read with section 120-B IPC can be said to have been made out against him."
These observations came in response to a plea filed by a man, seeking quashing of FIR lodged against him under Section 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946, Sections 3 (Punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel), 4 (Punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution), 5 (Procuring, inducing or taking woman or girl for the sake of prostitution.) 7 (Prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places) and 8 (Seducing or soliciting for purpose of prostitution) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 , Section 120-B IPC and Section 3 of Passport Act, 1967, at Gurugram's Police Station.
It was stated that the petitioner has been implicated as being a customer found in an objectionable position in the massage centre/spa.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted charges in the present case were framed in 2019, however, for the past four and a half years, none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined and the petitioner is facing the agony of a prolonged trial.
It further added that even if the allegations levelled in the FIR are taken at face value, the petitioner at best was found in the objectionable position with one of the girls working in the said spa.
Reliance was placed upon the State of U.P. through Principal Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and another, to underscore, "if a person visits a brothel, then, at the most, he 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...a customer who visits the brothel will not be liable u/s 3/4/5/7/8/9 of the Act.”
In the light of the above, the Court set aside the FIR.
Jagdeep Singh Rana Advocate for the petitioner.
Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
Title: X v. State of Haryana and ors.
Title: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 76