Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

SLC Reads

Customers in brothel can’t be prosecuted for immoral trafficking: Karnataka HC

Socio Legal Corp

Last Updated on April 12, 2022 by Administrator

Written by Shaurya Mahajan

Today, the Karnataka High Court in the case of Babu S v. State reiterated that a customer found in a brothel cannot be prosecuted for offences of immoral trafficking. 

The single bench consisting of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition, observing that the Court had consistently been of the view that a customer in a brothel cannot be hauled into criminal proceedings.

The petitioner was a customer who was found in a brothel during a raid. 

He was charged for offences under Sections 3 (punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel), 4 (living on the earnings of prostitution), 5 (procuring, inducing or taking a person for the sake of prostitution) and 6 (detaining a person in premises where prostitution is carried on) of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act (ITPA) and Section 370 (trafficking of persons) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

He approached the Court seeking quashing of the proceedings against him. 

The single-judge bench relied on Barath SP v State of Karnataka,in which the Karnataka High Court considered Section 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the ITPA as well as the offence of trafficking under the IPC to note that none of these provisions can be used against a customer. 

A customer does not keep a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel, live on the earnings of prostitution, procure or induce, etc, the High Court had noted. 

As the facts in both the cases were identical, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

Therefore, the proceeding against the accused was quashed and the court reclarified that criminal proceedings cannot be brought against a customer found in a brothel.  

Written By

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related Posts

District Court

Last Updated on September 16, 2024 by Athi Venkatesh The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) ruled in favor of Hyundai Motors Ltd....

Supreme Court

The order of the Bombay HC that directed the registration of an F.I.R. on the allegations of fraud was stayed by the SC.

High Court

Dermatologists have moved Bombay High Court against guidelines that permitted dentists to undertake hair transplantation. PIL cites risk to patient safety and not enough...

High Court

The Bombay High Court has recently denied anticipatory bail to a man, highlighting the negative impact of increasing unauthorized construction projects on public infrastructure.