Prayagraj, Aug 19 The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a man who visits a brothel as a customer cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, as paying money for personal gratification is not procurement for the purpose of prostitution within the meaning of the act.
The sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 deal with provisions relating to penalizing keeping or managing a brothel or allowing premises to be used as one; punishment to a person who lives on the earnings of another person's prostitution as well as targets those who procure, induce or take a person for sexual exploitation.
Justice Gautam Chowdhary in his judgement on August 11 observed, "If a person visits a brothel as a customer, then at the most, he may be procuring a prostitute to satisfy his personal lust, but not for the 'purpose of prostitution' as defined under the Act (which requires commercial exploitation). Therefore, a customer who pays money for gratification cannot be prosecuted under Section 3, 4, 5, or 7 of the Act."
With this observation, the court allowed the petition filed by a man named Nitin and quashed the charge sheet and criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who was among 16 people apprehended during a police raid on a house in Ghaziabad on December 31, 2023.
Nitin was charged under Sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the ITPA, and the high court found these charges legally unsustainable for a customer as they were related to running and management of a brothel.
The court said that a customer cannot be said to be keeping or managing or acting or assisting in the keeping or management of a brothel because he simply comes and pays money to get a woman to satisfy his lust.
The court further observed, "Perusal of the record shows that the applicant was merely a customer who came to satisfy his personal lust after paying the money and not for the purpose of prostitution; therefore, the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, are not attracted against the applicant.
"Thus, continuance of the proceedings against the accused applicant, would amount to sheer misuse of the process of the court."
