Solitary Instance Of Prostitution In A Place Does Not Make It A "Brothel": Meghalaya High Court

The observation came from Justice W. Diengdoh while relying on the case of Suseela v. State, 1982 CRI. L. J. 702:

"When the prosecution proved the presence of only one girl in the premises and a single instance of prostitution, the premises cannot be held to be "used for brothel". Solitary instance of prostitution in a place does not make the place a "brothel"."

As per the complaint, the police personnel spotted one girl and two men talking after which one of them went with the girl to a compound, suspected to be an area where soliciting sex workers for prostitution takes place. The said police personnel then followed the girl and her companions and saw them enter a room. Later, a search was conducted and the said girl was found to be in the company of the Petitioners.

Accordingly a case was registered under Sections 3(2)(a)(b)/4(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The girl was stated to be a minor and provisions under POCSO Act were also added.

The petitioners herein sought quashing of FIR.

They argued that being found in the company of a girl is not an offence and even if it is assumed that the allegation of being involved in prostitution is well founded, at best, the petitioners could be treated only as customers and the offences under Section 3(2)(a)(b) as well as Section 4(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act cannot be attributed to them.

The prosecution argued that petitioners being caught in the room with the girl can be said to be 'occupier' to come within the meaning of clause (a) of sub-section 2 of Section 3, and for which they can therefore be prosecuted for keeping a brothel within the broad meaning of Section 3.

The Court rejected this contention, stating that this line of argument narrows down the intent and purpose of the objective of Section 3 as far as the meaning of 'occupier' is concerned.

"Presence of only one girl in the premises and a single instance of prostitution, the premises cannot be held to be "used for brothel"."

The Court noted that it cannot be presumed that the Petitioners used the said room as a brothel, not to speak of the fact that there is no evidence that they are living on the earnings of prostitution. SO far as POCSO charges are concerned, the Court said there is nothing in the FIR or the subsequent investigation wherein any provision under the POCSO Act was alleged to have been violated by the petitioners.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Case Title: Shri Sunil Kumar Singha Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors

Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 29