S.7(1) Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act | Persons Who Carry Out Prostitution As Well As Those Who Engage As Customers Are Liable: P&H HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to quash an FIR lodged under the Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act against a man who was found in an objectionable position with a woman in a spa allegedly running prostitution. 

Justice Nidhi Gupta said, "Needless to say, the above allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Section 7(1) of the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956...A bare reading of the... provisions makes it crystal that both, the person who carries on prostitution and the person with whom the prostitution is carried on, are liable under the Act."

The Court was hearing a plea of the man seeking quashing of an FIR lodged under Sections 370 and 120-B IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act at Chandigarh.

According to the FIR, secret information was received that in the premises of a Spa, a brothel was being run whereby the owner and managers provided girls for prostitution in the name of massage to their customers.

The DSP nominated Constable Sandeep as a bogus customer and a Constable as shadow witness and it was decided that they would both go to the Spa to conduct the raid. When the raid was conducted, the petitioner was found in an objectionable position with a woman.

After hearing the submissions, the Court relied on the Kerala High Court judgement in Mathew Vs. State of Kerala [2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 639], and said: "Further, section 7(1) of the Act penalizes two types of persons for indulging in prostitution within the areas specified. Those persons are (i) the person who carries on prostitution and (ii) the person with whom such prostitution is carried on. Admittedly under sections 3 and 4 of the Act, a 'customer' is not included and only a brothel owner and a person who lives on the earnings of prostitution are included. Also, the words 'the person with whom such prostitution is carried on' does not appear in any other provision of the Act other than section 7."

The Court noted that the "unambiguous and clear allegation against the present petitioner is that he 'was found in objectionable condition having sex with another girl.'"

In light of the above the judge opined that the legal position along with the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, which were very serious, did not allow for the FIR to be quashed summarily.

Consequently, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Bharat Bhandari, Advocate Mr. Vinay Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Simmi Dhir Malhotra, APP UT Chd.

Title: XXX v. XXX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 202