Court rules mere presence as a customer without evidence of managing or inducing prostitution does not attract Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
In a significant judgment dated 31st October 2026, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar, quashed the FIR registered against Rupesh Ramchandra Chapke under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA Act). The case arose from a raid at a brothel where the applicant was found present as a customer.
The applicant was charged following Crime No. 333/2025 registered at the Badnapur Police Station, Jalna district. The prosecution alleged offenses under the PITA Act, claiming the applicant's presence in the brothel during the raid. However, the investigation did not reveal any material evidence suggesting that the applicant had managed or kept the brothel, lived on the earnings of prostitution, or procured or induced any person for prostitution.
Justice Ghodeswar observed that mere presence as a customer in a brothel does not constitute an offense under the relevant sections of the PITA Act. The Court relied on precedent judgments, including Mohammad Juned Mohammad Rauf v. State of Maharashtra (Aurangabad Bench, 2020), which clarified that the role of a customer does not attract Sections 3, 4, and 5 unless there is clear evidence of involvement in the management or inducement of prostitution.
The Court further examined the meaning of the word "cause" under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act, referring to the Division Bench judgment in Eimn Abdulamir Jassem Al-Allaf v. State of Maharashtra (2018). It was held that "cause" implies responsibility for bringing victims into the flesh trade, which does not extend to soliciting sexual intercourse by a customer.
The Court noted that the prosecution failed to provide any material showing that the applicant had procured, induced, or transported any person for prostitution, nor that he kept or managed the brothel or lived off the earnings of prostitution. Consequently, the Court found no case against the applicant under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the PITA Act.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal application, quashing the FIR and all further proceedings against Rupesh Ramchandra Chapke to the extent of the charges under the PITA Act. This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the liability of customers found in brothels and underscores that mere presence without active involvement in trafficking or management does not constitute a criminal offense under the Act.
Bottom Line:
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Mere presence of a person as a customer in a brothel, without material to show that he kept or managed brothel, lived on earnings of prostitution, or procured, induced or took any person for prostitution, would not attract Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act - FIR and consequential proceedings liable to be quashed.
Statutory provision(s): Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 Sections 3, 4, 5
