Court holds that sections 3, 5, 7, and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act do not apply to customers, quashes FIR against applicant caught as customer during police raid.
In a significant judgment delivered on September 18, 2026, the Gujarat High Court, presided over by Justice P. M. Raval, quashed the FIR registered against Mr. Kamlesh Hukamchand Vishnoi, who was apprehended as a customer during a police raid at a brothel run in a hotel in Ahmedabad. The FIR had charged the applicant under Sections 3, 5, 7, and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA), along with Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The incident leading to the FIR took place on January 17, 2010, when the police received secret information about the operation of a brothel at Hotel Dev Palace on Ashram Road. During the raid, the applicant was caught red-handed inside the premises as a customer along with several others. The complainant alleged that the brothel was being run in connivance with the hotel manager and owner, and that women were being procured from outside the state for prostitution.
The applicant challenged the FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), asserting that the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act invoked against him were not applicable since he was merely a customer. The Court examined the nature of the offenses under the said sections and previous judgments including Vishal Bhikhabhai Chavda v. State of Gujarat (2025) and Sajjan Kalikant Zha v. State of Gujarat (2026).
Justice Raval observed that:
- Section 3 of the ITPA punishes those who keep or manage a brothel, which does not extend to customers.
- Section 5 targets procurers or agents who procure women for prostitution, which is unrelated to the conduct of a customer.
- Section 7 addresses prostitution in or near public places and requires proof of prostitution, which cannot be attributed to customers merely caught during a raid.
- Section 9 penalizes persons in authority who seduce women or girls into prostitution, and no evidence suggested that the applicant held such authority or induced anyone.
Further, the Court noted that even under Section 188 IPC, which deals with disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant, no role was made out against the applicant. The Court also emphasized that cognizance of such offenses under Section 188 IPC requires a private complaint under Section 195 CrPC, and cannot be solely based on an FIR.
Accordingly, the Gujarat High Court held that none of the charges under the ITPA or the IPC stood against a customer caught during a raid, and therefore, quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against Mr. Vishnoi. The Court's ruling reinforces the principle that legal provisions targeting brothel keepers, procurers, or persons in authority should not be misapplied to customers.
This decision upholds the rights of individuals and clarifies the scope of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act in relation to customers, thereby preventing misuse of the law to prosecute innocent patrons.
Bottom Line:
A customer cannot be prosecuted under Sections 3, 5, 7, and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, as these provisions are directed towards brothel keepers, procurers, and those in positions of authority over women or girls, not customers.
Statutory provision(s):
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482, Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 Sections 3, 5, 7, 9, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 188
Kamlesh Hukamchand Vishnoi v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2981992
