Court holds Sections 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act inapplicable to a woman accused of participating in prostitution herself; extortion charges under IPC Sections 384 and 120B maintained against co-accused
In a significant ruling dated September 14, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Manisha Batra, partially allowed a revision petition filed by Ajaib Singh and Goldy challenging the framing of charges in a case arising out of FIR No. 80 dated September 20, 2015.
The case originated from a complaint by Goldy, initially alleging forcible abduction and gang rape by several men in Banur. However, during the police investigation, the narrative took a turn, with authorities concluding that Goldy had accompanied the accused voluntarily and engaged in consensual relations. Further, it was alleged that Goldy, along with her husband and others including Ajaib Singh, conspired to extort money from the accused persons by threatening to implicate them in a false rape case.
Charges were framed against Goldy under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (IT Act), and Sections 384 (extortion) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Ajaib Singh faced charges under Section 384 IPC. Both petitioners sought discharge from these charges, which were dismissed by the trial court, leading to the present revision petition.
Justice Batra critically examined the applicability of Sections 4 and 5 of the IT Act to Goldy. Section 4 criminalizes knowingly living on the earnings of another woman's prostitution, while Section 5 penalizes procuring, inducing, or taking a woman for prostitution. The court observed that Goldy was accused of participating in prostitution herself, not living off another's earnings or procuring others. The prosecution did not allege that she acted as a pimp or induced others into prostitution. Consequently, the court found the essential ingredients of Sections 4 and 5 absent in Goldy's case and quashed those charges.
Regarding Ajaib Singh, the court noted allegations supported by witness statements and electronic evidence that he demanded and received money from the family of co-accused persons in connivance with Goldy. These allegations prima facie satisfied the elements of extortion under Section 384 IPC. Further, the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC against Goldy was sustained due to her alleged involvement in the extortion scheme.
The court clarified that at the charge framing stage, it is not required to delve into detailed evidence appreciation but must ensure that the allegations and material prima facie disclose the offense's essential elements. It found the police investigation's change of version regarding Goldy's role insufficient to sustain charges under the IT Act but adequate to maintain extortion and conspiracy charges.
In conclusion, the High Court quashed the charges under Sections 4 and 5 of the IT Act against Goldy while upholding the extortion and conspiracy charges against both petitioners. The trial court was directed to proceed with the case accordingly.
This judgment underscores the necessity of precise application of legal provisions based on the facts and highlights judicial scrutiny at the charge framing stage to prevent misuse of penal provisions.
Bottom Line:
Charges under Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 cannot be sustained against a person accused of participating in prostitution themselves, as these sections apply to individuals living on the earnings of another woman's prostitution or procuring/inducing another woman for prostitution.
Statutory provision(s):
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 Sections 3, 4, 5; Indian Penal Code Sections 384, 376D, 342, 120B
Ajaib Singh v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2980012
