Kerala High Court: In a petition for quashing further proceedings dealing with a case revolving around whether a customer in a brothel could be prosecuted for offences under Sections 3, 5 and 7, Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (1956 Act), a Single Judge Bench of C. Pratheep Kumar, J., while allowing the petition, held that no inducement of prostitution was caused by the brothel customer and therefore the offences alleged were not attracted on the facts of the case, leading to the quashment of all further proceedings.
Background
The prosecution case alleged that two persons, with the intention of making earnings by running a brothel, rented a two-storied building at Gandhi Nagar. It was stated that another person came to the premises after paying consideration online and used the service of one of the ladies. Although the FIR originally referred to him as the third accused, he was later arrayed as Accused 4 (petitioner).
The petitioner prayed for quashing all proceedings against him, contending that the allegations in the FIR showed that he was only a customer and therefore the offences registered under Sections 3(1) and 3(2)(a) of the 1956 Act could not lie against him. However, the Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition and submitted that during investigation, offences under Sections 5(1)(a), 5(1)(d) and 7(1)(b) of the 1956 Act and Sections 143(1)(f) and 144(2) read with Section 34, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) were also revealed, and therefore the petition was liable to be dismissed.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that Section 3 of the 1956 Act deals with punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel, and therefore the said provision had no application to the petitioner who was alleged to be merely a customer. The Court opined that to attract Section 5 of the 1956 Act specific acts such as procuring, inducing, taking or causing a woman or girl to be taken for the purpose of prostitution are required.
The Court referred to Maniraj v. State of Kerala, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 1628, wherein it was held that Section 5 of the 1956 Act is attracted only when the accused induces a person to go from any place with the intent that the person may become an inmate of or frequent a brothel. The Court observed that in the present case, the petitioner had not procured or induced anyone or caused any woman to carry on prostitution. The Court also observed that a customer in a brothel cannot be held liable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the 1956 Act.
The Court noted that the allegations clearly showed that the women were kept in the brothel by two other accused persons and were not brought by the petitioner, and there was no allegation that he induced them to carry on prostitution. Therefore Section 5 of the 1956 Act was not attracted.
The Court then considered Section 7 of the Act and observed that for this provision to apply, prostitution must be carried out in the vicinity of a public place. The Court noted that the prosecution had no case that the area was notified as a public place, and it was only contended that there was a Cross Chapel within 50 metres of the location. The Court opined that it was not a place where ceremonies like holy mass or service were conducted, and therefore it could not be treated as a place of public religious worship, and hence Section 7 of the 1956 Act was also not attracted.
Consequently, the Court, while allowing the petition, held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing proceedings against the petitioner and quashed all further proceedings exercising the powers under Section 528, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
[Vishnu P.V. v. State of Kerala, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 2781, decided on 17-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Baby Thomas, K.K. Mohandas, Mariamma Joseph, Biju George, Indrajith S Kaimal, Alberthove Francis. M.G., Ehlas Haleema C.K., Alicia Jose, Johny George, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Anima. M, Public Prosecutor.