Gujarat High Court
Rahul Jagdishbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 21 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18956/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 18956 of 2024
==========================================================
RAHUL JAGDISHBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED TO CONCERNED POLICE STATION HOWEVER,
SERVICE REPORT NOT FILED BY POLICE STATION for the Respondent(s)
No. 2
MS. KRINA CALLA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 21/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of filing the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant- accused has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No. Part B-11210004221357 of 2022 registered with the Amroli Police Station, Surat, for the offences punishable under Sections 3,4,5,6,7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and under Section 370(a)(2) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the charge sheet and the Criminal Case No. 55413 of 2022 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Surat.
2. Rule. Learned APP Ms. Krina Calla waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:27:53 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18956/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined
3. It is the case of the present applicant that he was merely a customer and was arrested pursuant to the raid carried out by the Police. The case of the prosecution is that upon receiving the secret information, the police had raided the SPA/Massage Parlour and the applicant was caught red handed, for which the impugned FIR was registered on 6.6.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and under Section 370 (a) (2) of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik Soni appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was merely a customer and he had not procured or attempted to procure any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Vishal Bhikhabhai Chavda Vs. State of Gujarat [2025 (o) AIJEL HC 252088, learned advocate has submitted that the case on hand is squarely covered. The relevant paragraph of the judgment read thus :
"2. Ld. counsel Mr. Anandjiwala has drawn attention of this Court on the observations made by this Court in para- 26 of the decision in the case of State of Gujarat v. Bai Radha, w/o Natvarlal Ramshankar & Another (9 GLR
261). It would be beneficial to quote the relevant para-26 which is as under :-
"26. Sec.5(1)(a) provides that any person who procures or attempts to procure a woman or girl, whether with or without her consent, for the purpose of prostitution, that person shall Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:27:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18956/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined be punished as provided therein. In this respect also Mr. Nanavati's contention was that accused No.3 can be said to have procured a woman such as Bai Kanta for the purposes of prostitution to Kishan and that, therefore, he can be held liable for the offence under Section5(1)(a) of the Act. The word "procure" is not defined under the Act,but we were referred to its dictionary meaning which says "To bring about by care or pains; also (more vaguely) to bring about, cause, effect, produce; to obtain by care or effort; to acquire; to obtain (women) for the gratification of lust; to prevail upon, induce, persuade (a person) to do something." Giving the normal meaning to the use of the word "procure" in clause (a) of sub-
section (1) of Section 5, what is required is only that he must have obtained a woman or a girl for the purpose of prostitution for a particular individual."
Mr. Anandjiwala has placed emphasis on words "obtain a woman or a girl for the purpose of prostitution for a particular individual"
and it is argued that from these observations made, it is sufficiently clear that Section 5(i) (a) of the Act would not be attracted at all in the present case so far as the present petitioner is concerned.
13. The petitioner is also charged with the offence under Section 7 of the Act. Section 7 of the Act makes the prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places an offence. Firstly, the prostitution in itself is not an offence under the Act, save in the manner given in Sections 7 and 8. Firstly, the petitioner by any stretch of imagination cannot be charged with this offence under Section 7 of the Act because to attract the said section, the prosecution must prima facie show that the petitioner is carrying on prostitution. It is only when the first ingredient is satisfied then the question would be as to whether the prostitution is being carried out in or in the vicinity of public place. When Section 3 of the Act is not applicable, when Section 4 of the Act is not applicable to the present petitioner, there is no question of charging the accused with the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. When no formal raid was carried out at Hotel Taj Residency Umed and no part of the premises of the said hotel was found in actual use of such illegal activities, it would not be legal to continue the prosecution against the petitioner for using the public place for the activities of prostitution."""
5. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik Soni has further submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:27:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18956/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025 undefined dated 15.12.2023 passed in the case of Jojo Thomas Kannappilly Vs. State of Gujarat, rendered in Criminal Misc.Application No. 7387 of 2023, has also taken a similar view relying upon the judgment of this Court in the Case of Umedsinh P. Chamapavat Vs. State of Gujarat [2006 (2)) GLH 736.
6. Learned APP Ms. Krina Calla appearing for the respondent-State could not dispute the aforesaid fact that the applicant has been arraigned as a customer, and in similar set of facts, this Court had quashed the complaint. Therefore, though she has opposed the application, she however, submitted that appropriate orders may be passed.
7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, since the issue is squarely covered, I am of the opinion that the present application deserves consideration.
8. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The impugned FIR being CR No. Part B-11210004221357 of 2022 registered with the Amroli Police Station, Surat, as well as, the proceeding of the Criminal Case No. 55413 of 2022 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Surat and all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the applicant-accused, are hereby quashed and set aside. Direct service is permitted.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J) MARY VADAKKAN Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:27:53 IST 2025